Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion 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 expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
