Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
