Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news 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 install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting 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, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. 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 Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
