🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 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.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, 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 hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, 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 speak to the press.

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

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

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