🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone 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 global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, 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 listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, 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 make comments 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.