The truth is that every trade deal imposes some restriction on sovereignty.

The ending of irrational fantasies is always going to come as a rude jolt.

The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was a bilateral one between ourselves and Ireland and did not involve the E.U. at all. It just presupposed common E.U. membership as a facilitator of its successful operation.

Jeremy Corbyn has shown no ability to provide solutions for Brexit whatsoever.

As an MP, my first duty is to act in the national interest, regardless of party affiliation.

In 2016 the public voted by a majority to leave the E.U. As I can see from my mailbag, some are angry at being deprived of their hopes and expectations. They demand action to implement their vote, just as others require we should think again and abandon the project entirely.

As a past attorney general I consider a WTO Brexit to be a disaster for us as, leaving aside the economic damage it will cause, it would trash our reputation for observing our international obligations - as it must lead to our breaching the Good Friday Agreement with Ireland on the Irish border.

As a mountain walker, one of the most frustrating mistakes one can make in bad weather is taking the wrong route down.

The public are not fools.

We were all elected to try to improve the lives of our constituents.

I have no doubt that those who campaigned for and voted leave in 2016 did so with honourable motives.

For democracy to function properly it requires accepting the absolute right of individuals and groups to campaign against decisions previously taken by majorities and to seek to change them.

Only a Conservative government can credibly deliver the overhaul in approach that will ensure the controlled immigration that Britain needs to prosper in the 21st century.

A Conservative government will set immigration policy within a wider strategy that meets the changing demographic make-up of Britain, taking full account of its impact on our population and maximising the economic advantages while mitigating the costs and risks.

The failure to manage economic migration properly has put further pressure on transport and housing.

Our schools face immense pressures caused by the different needs and languages of children from immigrant families, particularly in urban areas.

Any politician can talk about resuscitating public trust.

This is bad for policy-making - if you cover up the problems, how can you solve them? It also corrodes public trust. Government must be much more honest about the challenges facing the country, if we are to begin to tackle them. Short-term spin must give way to proper long-term strategic thinking.

In my brief, home affairs, we have witnessed ministers issue countless dodgy dossiers, fiddle figures and fudge facts.

Investment by any foreign company in any element of the U.K.'s Critical National Infrastructure should receive careful scrutiny.

Since 1955, the U.K. has been part of an intelligence-sharing arrangement with the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Intelligence-sharing is, in itself, commonplace.

In seeking to counter challenges such as terrorist threats, hostile state activity, or nuclear proliferation, we cannot work in isolation.

Intelligence is fragmentary and hard to discover, so it is by joining forces and sharing information with our allies that we maximise our ability to protect ourselves.

It has long been noted that two of the Conservative Party's great strengths have been the loyalty of its members and its pragmatic approach to policy challenges.

Including myself, it is now clear that there is a significant group of Conservative MPs who think that a People's Vote - a vote on the final form Brexit will take, is absolutely indispensable for the future wellbeing of our country.

The country needs leadership driven by the dictates of national security, not the ebb and flow of political fortunes.

We will not be thanked by anyone for dragging the country out of the E.U. on a deal for which the public have shown no enthusiasm. For MPs that would be an abdication of responsibility.

Thankfully, roads have opened that could lead us out of this Brexit crisis. One obvious solution, which is fast gaining support, is to hand the issue back to the country. I would add that we also need formally to take no deal Brexit off the table, because that way lies chaos and disaster.

We have collectively to face up to the fact that in the two main political parties there are substantial disagreements on the best form Brexit should take.

A decision as a backbencher to vote against one's party ought not to be taken lightly.

Political parties depend for existence and success, not so much on the holding of identical views, as on a shared philosophy and ties of loyalty and respect between members. So there are good reasons to try to find compromises when differences emerge on a specific matter.

If parliament and government work together in their respective constitutional roles, and respect due processes, we will maximise our chances of making the right decisions as we encounter the many challenges, risks and opportunities Brexit poses for our country.

As a politician, I should expect sharp challenge from those who disagree with my decisions.

All the main parties accept that the stated wish of the United Kingdom electorate to leave the E.U. must be respected. That must place on us collectively a responsibility to work together to find a solution.

From the immediate abandonment of the promise of an extra £350m for the NHS, the history of Brexit is already littered with discarded and unfulfillable promises.

We do ourselves as politicians no favours if we are seen to peddle unachievable moonshine.

It is this desire to see civil society remain a strong and united force within the U.K. that has encouraged me to chair Citizens U.K. Commission on Islam, Participation and Public Life.

We need to understand why there is a void of participation in public life from the Muslim community and why it is a growing issue, and we need to understand the impact of this on wider civil society.

As one of the principal responsibilities of the government is to safeguard its citizens, it is entirely reasonable that it should look at what more might be done to improve security.

Whether it be the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 or the Terrorism Act 2000, there is no shortage of offences with which to prosecute those who go abroad to fight or train and who may threaten us on their return.

As has been the case throughout the history of terrorism, government anxiety centres on what to do about those against whom there may be intelligence but no usable evidence.

Believing in and practising the principles of the rule of law is, with our liberty and democracy, among the most powerful weapons we have. It is less effective if we blur its clarity and we should do this as sparingly as possible.

It is not always easy to balance freedom of expression with the needs of the justice system.

The inexorable rise of the Internet and the citizen journalist presents us all with challenges for the future.

The state is there to serve the citizen, not the reverse.

Of course we should harness IT to strengthen public protection and public service delivery.

I worry that there are attempts to push faith out of the public space. Clearly it happens at a level of local power.

Some of the cases which have come to light of employers being disciplined or sacked for simply trying to talk about their faith in the workplace I find quite extraordinary. The sanitisation will lead to people of faith excluding themselves from the public space and being excluded.

I think politicians should express their faith. I have never adhered to the Blair view that we don't do God, indeed I'm not sure that Blair does.

It's very nice to be a rebel saying, 'I stand on my principles,' but if in fact that's not going to have any impact on the policy, it may be principled, but it doesn't deliver the better outcome that the country needs.