🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

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

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.