Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
