Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold 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 refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, 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 balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation 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.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
