Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 area of control.
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 “a number of considerations”. 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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear 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 schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
