Government Official Rejects Allegations of Declining to Label Venezuelan Leader Extradition Unlawful to Appease US President.

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.

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

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members 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:

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

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect 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 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.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, 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 lobby briefing.

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

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