Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – 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 Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
