Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – 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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, 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, Thornberry 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 minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm 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 press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
