🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN 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.

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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. 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 not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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 press.

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

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.

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