🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations 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 close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, 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 minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address 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 visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

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