Minister Dismisses Allegations of Declining to Label Venezuelan Leader Removal Unlawful to Appease 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 government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.

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

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation 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 wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, 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 tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.

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