Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
