Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU 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 defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
