Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – 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 Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
