🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU recalls 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 defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was conducting 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 worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit 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 queries in the Commons.

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