Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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. UK ministers 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 steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 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 breach of global rules, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
