Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
