Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation 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.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead 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 press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
