Government Official Dismisses Allegations of Refusing to Call Venezuelan Leader Removal Unlawful to Placate Trump.

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. 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 ex- 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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.

[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.