🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

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

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

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she 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:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.