🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets 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 standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.

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

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

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