Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions 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 consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to 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 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 speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby 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 the ongoing situation.
