Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. 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 undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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.
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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 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 proper justification.
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 speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments 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: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
