Government Official Dismisses Claims of Refusing to Label Maduro Removal Unlawful to Appease Trump.

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer 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 referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty 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 Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 area of control.

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 government member, she said. She added:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

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

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

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.