Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis 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 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
