Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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 Venezuela.
