Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting 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 install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position 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 hear what the reasoning 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
