🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development 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 the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government 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 talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders 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 media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.