Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing 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 prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government 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 stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. 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 taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
