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

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics appears 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law 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 global security framework.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension 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 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 sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she 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 minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.

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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.