Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
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 anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations 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 last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.