Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – 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 Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 the Chinese president, 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, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position 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 American government. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
