🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.

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

But there is an intense debate under way 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 cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged 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 explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

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 different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to hear 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 schedule for the day.

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

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

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 Venezuela.