Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably 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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid 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. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone 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 broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance 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 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end 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 everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.