Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing 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 prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations 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 talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us 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 talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads 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 speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
