'We can't cherry pick which laws to keep'

Why should we care about international law? asks Scott Marmion (Letters, September 21).

We should care because laws are important and good laws are designed to protect us.

If a burglar breaks into our house, would we be content with the argument that the burglar was only breaking the law ‘in a specific and limited way’ and allow the burglar to keep the goods he stole and escape punishment?

Good laws are necessary to keep society functioning, and international laws are designed to keep the peace between countries.

Treaties are promises made between countries and backed up by such laws. Most people can see that this is sensible, and that failure to keep one’s word, whether as an individual or as a country, leads to lack of trust and hostility.

It is incorrect of Dr Marmion to say that ‘no other country cares about international law.’ If it were so, there would be no outrage at the possibility Johnson breaking it.

In Mr Johnson’s case, he is proposing to break a treaty he himself has drawn up and boasted about as a good deal.

Until now, Britain has had a reputation for fairness and reliability as a law keeper, which Johnson’s behaviour threatens to destroy.

One cannot cherry pick which laws to keep and which to break. There are procedures for Parliament to change bad or unhelpful laws, but the law as it stands must be kept, to safeguard us all.

Sue Norton Wentworth Road, York

Who protects us once we cut down all the laws?

So, Dr Scott Marmion has noticed that there have been many objections to the PM’s proposed breaking of international law (Letters, September 21).

Perhaps this is because there is much to be objected to. Dr Marmion’s argument that ‘no other country cares about international law’ is not only factually inaccurate, it also contains a logical fallacy which has nothing to do with Brexit. There are doubtless many in this and other countries in the world who do not care about national law either. So is he suggesting that we would all benefit from a general free-for-all?

Many will prefer Thomas More’s response to his son-in-law William Roper in Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons. Roper had been upbraiding More for being overly technical and standing on the letter of the law in defending himself against the machinations of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell.

More had observed: “The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal . . . What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?”

Roper’s response was: “I’d cut down every law in England to do that!” To which More replied :“Oh! And when the last law was down and the devil turned round, where would you hide, Roper?”

Tony Lawton, Skelton, York