Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. 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 juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
