Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls 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 particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads 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 make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
