Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged 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 value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby 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 the ongoing situation.