Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
