Minister Rejects Claims of Declining to Label Maduro Removal Unlawful to Placate US President.

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend 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 international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.