Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately 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 US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
