2.2.4 – The ways in which Parliament interacts with the Executive
Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) is the most important set piece of the weekly parliamentary timetable and is almost unique to British politics. Few other states hold a weekly session in which the head of the executive is required to face the legislature, with virtually no limits on the subjects that can be raised. The session takes place every Wednesday at 12:00 and is often dismissed as parliamentary theatre or “Punch and Judy” politics. However, it is undoubtedly more than this.
At Prime Minister’s Questions on 7 January 2026, Ed Davey asked a direct question of the Prime Minister concerning the legality of Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela:
“I welcome the progress made on security guarantees for Ukraine yesterday. Geoffrey Robertson KC is a respected authority on international law. He is also the head of the Prime Minister’s former barrister chambers and he could not be clearer: President Trump’s actions in Venezuela are illegal. He says the United States ‘is in breach of the United Nations Charter’ and ‘has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime’. Does the Prime Minister agree with his old mentor, or has he got it wrong?”
As expected, Keir Starmer’s response was somewhat evasive. He began by stating that he was not saddened by the removal of President Maduro, whom he described as having held power illegitimately. However, he refused to answer the question on the
legality of US actions, instead saying that it was “up to the United States to justify its actions”.
In a follow-up question, Davey asked about comments from the United States, and indications that it was official policy, suggesting that Greenland should become part of the United States. On this issue, Starmer was far more forthright, clearly stating that the future of Greenland was for Greenland alone to decide.
This raises the question of why Starmer was so evasive in response to the first question, yet able to answer the second much more directly. The reasons for this are both political and constitutional.
Politically, Starmer occupies a very difficult position in managing his relationship with Donald Trump. The United States is the UK’s most significant strategic and economic partner, and Starmer must handle this relationship carefully. He has seen the volatility of Trump’s relationships with other world leaders and will be keen to avoid any direct confrontation. Were Starmer to criticise Trump’s actions, he would likely wish to do so in coordination with other world leaders rather than acting alone.
Starmer also has a background in human rights law and enjoyed a distinguished legal career, culminating in his role as Director of Public Prosecutions. It is therefore entirely possible that he personally agrees that Trump’s actions in Venezuela were illegal under international law. However, regardless of personal background, prime ministers take legal advice from the Attorney General before making statements on matters of legality.
More importantly, there are constitutional constraints. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, must not mislead the House of Commons. If Starmer had received legal advice that the actions were illegal and then told the Commons that they were legal, he would have misled the House and would be expected to resign. For this reason, it is likely that Starmer has deliberately avoided seeking a definitive legal judgment on the issue, as knowing the answer would place him in a politically and constitutionally untenable position.
For ministers, answering questions in the House of Commons is therefore both a political and constitutional tightrope. While many find the spectacle of ministers failing to give direct answers frustrating, it is an inevitable consequence of the constraints under which they operate.
The severity of a Prime Minister misleading the House has been demonstrated in recent years. In June 2023, the Commons Privileges Committee concluded that Boris Johnson had misled the House during PMQs over his knowledge of Partygate. Ironically, this was in response to questions from Keir Starmer. Johnson’s referral to the Privileges Committee in April 2022 contributed to his resignation as Prime Minister in July of that year, and he resigned his seat in the Commons after seeing a draft copy of the final report, which recommended his suspension from the House.