🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to 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 viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, 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 Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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.

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda 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 respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

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