🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:

Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, 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 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 violation 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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.