🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. 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 close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an appearance 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 breach of international law, she 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 added:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

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

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