Government Official Dismisses Claims of Declining to Label Venezuelan Leader Removal Illegal to Appease Trump.

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct 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 declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN 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 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 violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations 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 talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

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

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

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning 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 due to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby 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 the ongoing situation.