🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

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

Absolutely not. The British government 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 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 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 international law, 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 minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.