🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining 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 separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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 Venezuela.