Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. 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 close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
