Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
