Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely 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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, 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.
The migration minister, was conducting 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 worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
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 literally 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 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
