Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps 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 approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend 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 Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
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 weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before 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 talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
