Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to 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 valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
