Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar 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 broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
