Minister Rejects Claims of Refusing to Label Maduro Removal Unlawful to Placate Trump.

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.

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

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 minister, she said. She added:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before 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 talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

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

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

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