Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided 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 value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
