Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. 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 close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
