Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
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 global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations 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 consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 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 minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm 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 press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
