Changing your mind is a privilege for MPs – not the public. And all these votes on Brexit prove it

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

It was intriguing to note that leading Brexiteer Mark Francois earlier this week wrote a letter to Graham Brady, the chair of the Tories’ 1922 committee, demanding another vote on Theresa May's leadership of the Tory party.

In December, Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote, which was triggered by 48 of her own MPs who had grown disillusioned with her handling of the Brexit process.

Two hundred Tories backed May, while 117 voted against her, with Francois in the latter camp. The MP for Rayleigh and Wickford now wants a second “informal” indicative vote on May, given the change in circumstances since December.

This is rather odd as we have had the spectre of Francois, who is dead set against another referendum on the UK’s position in the EU, now looking again to oust the prime minister.

In addition, we have witnessed MPs having three says on trying to pass the EU withdrawal agreement, many of whom changed their minds over the course of the votes.

The irony will surely not be lost on anyone that Francois seems to find no issue in MPs like himself being able to have countless votes on matters, but woe betide the public, many of whom have likewise changed their minds, being afforded the same opportunity.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

There's no place for hunting in this world

I was disgusted to hear that Ron Thomson has no regrets about killing 5,000 elephants and 50 hippos. His reasoning is that he is controlling the population of these majestic animals. Who, I wonder, has gave him the God-given right to eliminate these animals?

It is cowardly to sneak up on these poor creatures and blast them with powerful guns. Hunting is a disgrace and brings shame to the human species.

Just as we have a law for war criminals, we need a law for crimes against animal species. Human beings crave for peace and despair at the violence that engulfs them and yet they are completely blase about killing animals. This violence rebounds on us and hangs on us like a immovable cloud of negativity which deprives us of the peace we desperately seek.

Nitin Mehta
Croydon

What about justice in divorce?

Surely in issues concerning divorce we must not overlook the principle of justice?

While we can accept that there may be divorces in which neither or both parties are at fault, there are cases when one partner has been clearly wronged and the injustice that they have suffered deserves recognition by the courts.

I am thinking of adultery, desertion and abuse. Justice demands nothing less.

Francis Beswick
Stretford

The government's no-fault divorce proposals are a marriage-wrecker's charter and a disgrace, as opposed by 83 per cent of those who responded to the consultation. Marriage vows matter.

Government plans trivialise marriage promises. They also create instability and uncertainty in marriage.

Cheating spouses can much more easily walk away from their solemn, lifelong commitment whenever they choose – aided and abetted by the state.

Research overwhelmingly shows that children normally fare better in married households compared to those in broken homes. Easy divorce is not in the interests of children. The social cost will be enormous – met by state funds.

Sometimes I think intelligent people in government don't think fully about the implications of their actions.

J Longstaff
Buxted

So much more than a hard Brexit

Sean O'Grady, please stop calling no deal a “hard” Brexit.

A hard Brexit is one where we leave the customs union, the single market etc, similar to Theresa May's failed deal.

A no-deal Brexit is the catastrophic consequence of not being able to agree any deal, and should not be an option on any People’s Vote ballot.

Martin Heaton
Gatley