Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot 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 Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. 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 scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
