🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, 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 case recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative 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: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

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