Good morning. 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 a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
