Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, 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 broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. 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 recently, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
