🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister 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 overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance 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 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 violation of international law, 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 government member, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

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