🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

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

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, 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 declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

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