Do MPs who vote for a bill breaking international law have an excuse?

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Boris Johnson’s government intends to renege on the Brexit deal made with the EU (AP)

The government’s communications strategy regarding Rwanda deportations, and its proposals to unilaterally change the Northern Ireland protocol is that the ends justify the means. Pursuing those ends includes passing into UK law the actions that would break international law. That cannot be done without the votes of members of parliament.

I wonder if any contributors to your letters pages could tell me if those voting for such measures would themselves formally become accessories to breaking international law, and if so what sanctions or actions they might become subject to? Or could they use Boris Johnson’s favoured defence, that they only broke the law unwittingly?

Gary Wiltshire

Isle of Mull

While I agree with you that a trade war between the UK and the EU would be economic madness, I don’t agree that we are in danger of sliding into it. Isn’t it more likely that the prime minister will give it an almighty shove?

Val Hatton

Address withheld

Boris Johnson’s government intends to renege on the Brexit deal made with the EU. They have realised, at last, that the Irish border is an insoluble problem, and the protocol isn’t working. They appear to have simply not understood what they were signing. Or perhaps they saw the whole thing as just a game?

In a few days a plane will go to Rwanda carrying no more than seven refugees in order, allegedly, to deter illegal trafficking. This move is widely regarded as immoral, and is very likely to be ineffective. It’s difficult to avoid the suspicion that these manoeuvres are designed to be a distraction from the illegal No 10 parties. But whatever the cause, a government that has demonstrated such incompetence and heartlessness should, in a properly conducted democracy, be obliged to seek re-election, and this should be by a proportional system.

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

I recall at some stage the Labour Party, while accepting Brexit as the people’s democratic choice, argued that we should remain in the customs union. Surely it is time for them to return to this position on the basis that the benefits from being out, and being able to negotiate our own trade deals are proving illusory, while the costs in terms of added trade bureaucracy, loss of trade, and political damage to the Northern Ireland situation are tangible and significant.

Robert Park

Address withheld

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Here is a suggestion that should appeal to those wishing to save money on unnecessary air travel.

When Prince Charles travels to Rwanda for the Commonwealth conference next week, he could travel in the first class section at the front of the plane, and the asylum seekers could be accommodated at the rear – in chains. That way no one would be in any doubt of the true intention of our government’s policy.

Tony Fieldhouse

London

The correct metaphors

Tom Peck, in his piece yesterday, confusingly uses two metaphors to describe the government. Alternating between a barrel and a toilet bowl. For the sake of clarity I would suggest the following explanation. A barrel is a container the bottom of which can be scraped which may or may not be full of bad apples. The oft quoted bad one quickly contaminating the rest whereas a toilet bowl is full of cr**.

G Forward

Stirling