Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
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 steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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.
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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
