🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring 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 under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

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 balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.