Government Official Dismisses Claims of Refusing to Label Maduro Extradition Unlawful to Appease US President.

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, 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 breach of international law, 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:

In the end 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 American government. I can state before 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.