🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold 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 refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out 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, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well wish 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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 Venezuela.