🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is an intense debate 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, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty 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 refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an appearance 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 sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

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

[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due 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 expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.