🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar 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 broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.