Government Official Dismisses Claims of Refusing to Call Maduro Removal Unlawful to Placate Trump.

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way 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, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. 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.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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