Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, 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, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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:
In the end 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 us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
