🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an appearance 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 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 breach of international law, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She added:

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

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda 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 in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

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

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