Good morning. 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 recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government 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 overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
