Government Official Rejects Allegations of Refusing to Label Venezuelan Leader Removal Unlawful to Placate US President.

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

In the end 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 everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address 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 gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

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