🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she 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 added:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification 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 agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up 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: 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.