Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – 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 the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, 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:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
