🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked 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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.

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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.