Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning 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 due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
