🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation 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 minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

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