Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 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 office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
