Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
