🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining 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 the Russian leader 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, she 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:

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 reasoning 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.

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

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