🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid 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 steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned 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 “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

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

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.