🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

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