🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way 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 compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

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

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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