🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis 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 interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

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

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.