🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s 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 very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 due to speak to the media.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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.