🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting 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 prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar 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 violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. 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 talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.