Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
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 country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer 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 joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances 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, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
