Government Official Rejects Allegations of Refusing to Call Maduro Removal Illegal to Placate US President.

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 international security architecture.

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 broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 very concerned 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 violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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 not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.