🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone 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 Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps 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 ex- 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 area of control.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification 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 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 mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.