Having campaigned to remain in the E.U., I voted to trigger Article 50, in response to the clearly expressed wish of the electorate. It must now be my duty as an MP to try to ensure that Brexit is as smooth as possible and that there is a sound legislative framework in place to bring this about. A chaotic departure is in no-one's interest.

Very few MPs disagree with the need for a withdrawal bill to enable us to disentangle our 50-year relationship with the legal structures of the European Union and to enable us to function effectively outside of it.

I believe that MPs from all parties must work together to prevent a damaging hard exit.

Ties of loyalty play an understandably important part in how most MPs interact with their own party and the supporters who have elected and sustained them in their careers. As I know personally it is the strain put on those ties which constitutes the most unpleasant aspect of being at variance with one's own party line.

We need to work together to either achieve a form of Brexit that does not threaten our future or ensure that the decision to complete departure is the electorate's informed choice.

As a practising Anglican I go to church on a Sunday.

In the past there has been debate as to whether or not traditional rights such as that to trial by jury might be protected or if a Bill of Rights should extend into areas of social and economic policy.

Hostility to the Human Rights Act has been present in sections of the Conservative Party since its enactment, and this has grown more strident with the passage of time, encouraged by some sections of the press.

In a mature democracy any proposed policy should be subjected to a close analysis of its likely benefits and costs.

Contrary to the myth that the U.K. respects decisions of the Strasbourg court but many other adherent states do not, the convention and Strasbourg court judgements have proved a highly effective tool in protecting and developing human rights in countries with no tradition of the rule of law.

As a strong believer that Brexit is a very damaging mistake that becomes more obvious every day, I see sound democratic reasons for asking the electorate to confirm what it wants to do.

A no deal Brexit is a proposal so damaging to our future that it cannot be accepted.

There are, of course, some who demand a no-deal Brexit and threaten to vote for any party that will deliver it.

No one is going to thank us afterwards for a Brexit that reduces people's quality of life.

In a deeply divided country we must either work together to get the best deal we can - and this needs compromise - or accept that Brexit cannot be implemented and think again about what we are doing.

Our best hope in meeting the many challenges that Brexit brings for us is being willing to be open-minded about the options we may choose to pursue.

It is in nobody's interest that groups should find themselves excluded from society.

Paralysis in decision-making breeds frustration and contempt from the electorate, and provides the perfect seedbed for demagogues who fill the vacuum with populist simplicities, hatred of opposition and lies.

Our personal data belongs to us. Government holds it on trust.

There is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.

A careful examination of the information available, from previous counter-terrorism investigations, demonstrates that police have never come close to having to release any dangerous terrorist suspects as a result of time constraints.

As attorney general I see my role as defender both of press freedom and of the fair administration of justice.

Surveillance legislation passed in good faith has been stretched well beyond its original purpose.

A Brexit with a poor outcome will damage our country and lead to years of further division.