Boris Johnson is 'surrendering' to the might of the chlorinated chicken. So who is the traitor?

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Our esteemed prime minister sees fit to use the terms “surrender” and “chicken” to describe parliamentary efforts to stop a no-deal Brexit, but he might describe his own strategy in the same way, as a headlong rush to surrender to the might of the chlorinated chicken.

The sooner this man swaps his goading references to humbug for a gobstopper, the better. Bring back that deal, Boris, and let the people have a Final Say on whether it’s better than the deal we’ve already got.

Sarah Wood
Scotland

Cummings in charge

Boris Johnson’s rhetoric and language of “no surrender” and “betrayal” by parliament of the 52 per cent of people who voted Leave in the 2016 referendum should be equally applied to those who voted Remain.

A no-deal Brexit, which appears to be the main driver of the Johnson/Cummings pact, would be a “betrayal” of the 48 per cent of people who voted remain. His desired outcome would be “surrendering” their future, and indeed the hundreds of thousands of young people who would then be unable to vote. His deal would be surrendering to the ideology of the right and the destruction of our economy for many years to come.

Kate Hall
Leeds

One step over the pond

This week took an unpleasant lurch into Trumpian politics with its sound bites misrepresenting the truth. It was the ex-rebel Tories who stopped Brexit because they want a different Brexit to the one in the referendum. They are not the champions of the will of the people: the EU elections strongly suggest that at most a third of the electorate want a no-deal Brexit. They are trying to distort democracy and democracy requires that they and their rabble-rouser in chief are held to account.

Brexit, deal or no deal, will not heal the nation. A general election will not establish the will of the people on Brexit. A referendum clearly stating the alternatives will at least ensure a democratic outcome.

Jon Hawksley​
London, EC1

Hypocrisy

I remember being asked, prior to the referendum, how I was going to vote and why. I replied that I acknowledge that the EU is not perfect but when I saw the group of politicians campaigning for Leave, I was concerned for the future of human rights, workers’ rights and environmental protections.

That group is now in control of the government and they are using every trick in the book to realise their dream of a low tax, low regulation utopia. A utopia for them, not for the many who voted leave. The vote, at 52/48, should, we are told, be respected. I wonder if they would have respected the vote had it been the other way round? I think not.

Andy Vant​
Shropshire

Boating scandal

Why aren’t the people who voted overwhelmingly to name our latest research vessel outraged by the overruling of the poll to name the RRS Sir David Attenborough? After all, Boaty McBoatface was the will of the people surely.

Lynne Lord
Heywood

Right to die

The Italian constitutional court has ruled that helping a patient dying in extremis to access physician-assisted suicide is compatible with post-war Italian law. At present, the Vatican and those who oppose euthanasia rely on laws set up by Mussolini’s fascist government, which gives those who help the patient a mandatory 12-year sentence.

This is surely the time for reform. I recall what the late Margo MacDonald said: that while she faced implacable opposition from church leaders to her campaign for the merciful release of those dying in pain and distress, her most ardent supporters were the ordinary parish clergy of the Scottish Kirk and Catholic Church.

Rev Dr John Cameron
St Andrews