Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion 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 US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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.
