Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, 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 “a number of considerations”. 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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
