Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
