Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations 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 global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 global rules, 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:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due 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 expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
