Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor 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 criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions 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 talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 breach of international law, Thornberry 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. 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 literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
