Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, 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 worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis 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 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[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 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 mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.
