Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers 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 consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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.
