Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
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 replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
