Welcome back. 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 reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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 sphere of influence.
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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up 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: Downing Street holds a lobby 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.
