Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates 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 special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 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 global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 justification is from the American government. 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
