Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate 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 anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. 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 press.
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 the ongoing situation.
