Johnson is trying to square a triangle over Irish border
It is clear that Boris Johnson and his followers do not like the Northern Irish protocol. But we hear nothing about what they would like to happen in Northern Ireland. They appear to believe it is possible for two states (the EU and UK) to coexist without a hard border, despite having quite different laws, and that this would not somehow lead to smuggling (in both directions) and free movement of people (which they certainly do not want).
Something has to give. Boris Johnson is hoping that the EU will blink: whatever action they choose will be anathema to him, and he will use it to vilify our former partners. The press and politicians should be pushing the PM hard to tell us how he hopes to square the triangle of no hard border in Ireland, no free movement of people or goods, and no border in the Irish Sea.
Rachael Padman, Newmarket, Suffolk A legal definition
Could someone, preferably the justice secretary, please define the conditions when it is “acceptable” to break the law? This would be an even better legal defence than the Barnard Castle defence.
Christopher Pastakia, Lossiemouth Mind boggling
I was going to write a pithy but, hopefully, still amusing letter about the government’s latest shenanigans but I can’t get my head out of my hands.
Judy Marris, Bath The monster in the making
“Irresponsible, wrong in principle and dangerous in practice.” John Major and Tony Blair on Boris Johnson’s threat to break international law in changing his own post-Brexit deal with the EU.
“…how can the government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations of the agreements it signs?" Theresa May expressing concern about Johnson’s plans to break the law in a "specific and limited way".
“I do have misgivings.” David Cameron on Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit negotiations with the EU.
"Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?" The monster of Frankenstein to his creator.
Pawn in a political game
I read Andy Gregory's article (Groundless’ new trial of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe postponed at last minute, yesterday) about the continuing plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe with interest and was relieved that the trial did not in fact take place on Sunday. But then I thought this poor woman must have shredded nerves with this continuing miscarriage of justice.
I have said it before and I will reiterate now that I do not know how her husband Richard keeps it together so remarkably and always, yet always when he is being interviewed speaks with consummate calm about this hideous situation. In fact Boris Johnson could take lessons from him, as he gets his points across without bluff and bluster.
I was pleased to read that Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, does appreciate that Zaghari-Ratcliffe is a pawn in a political game, because as he states there is a legitimate reason that the debt owed to Tehran should be expedited. This is good news so please get on with it and this poor woman can be reunited at last with her husband and daughter Gabriella. She has suffered enough as a hostage to political fortune or in her case very much misfortune and it is indeed shameful. Because she will never get those missing years back, but at least her safe future should be a matter of extreme urgency for this government to secure.
Judith A Daniels, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Peer pressure
What an irony it is that my alma mater, Edinburgh University, should be disowning the Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, by whose association with the university they have hitherto laid much store. It was the university that, in the 1960s, razed much of the eighteenth century architecture of George Square to make way for unprepossessing modern buildings such as the David Hume Tower. Now, this building will be known as 40 George Square, because David Hume’s "comments on matters of race, though not uncommon at the time, rightly cause distress today".
I trust that the 1,700 people who petitioned for this change, as well as those who acceded to it, have examined their own genealogies to ascertain whether any of their forebears had any connection with slavery.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh