A Brexit with a poor outcome will damage our country and lead to years of further division.
Dominic Grieve
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.
As attorney general I see my role as defender both of press freedom and of the fair administration of justice.
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.
A no deal Brexit is a proposal so damaging to our future that it cannot be accepted.
Henry VIII Clauses allowing the Government to change almost any law of the land by statutory instrument, if needed, to implement Brexit must be properly restricted.
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.
I have no doubt that those who campaigned for and voted leave in 2016 did so with honourable motives.
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.
All political parties, if they are to be successful, have to be broad churches.
Investment by any foreign company in any element of the U.K.'s Critical National Infrastructure should receive careful scrutiny.
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.
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.
No one is going to thank us afterwards for a Brexit that reduces people's quality of life.
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.
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.
The inexorable rise of the Internet and the citizen journalist presents us all with challenges for the future.
As a mountain walker, one of the most frustrating mistakes one can make in bad weather is taking the wrong route down.
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.
I came into parliament to do things, so I don't particularly relish being a rebel.
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.
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.
The truth is that every trade deal imposes some restriction on sovereignty.
Most states, for all their rhetoric in favour of free trade, are adept at trying to manipulate markets to protect and advantage their own producers.
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.
As an MP, my first duty is to act in the national interest, regardless of party affiliation.
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.
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.
Much as criticism can and has been made as to how E.U. law has been created, there is much in it that affects our daily lives for the better and is welcomed by many without them being necessarily aware of where it comes from.
Of course we should harness IT to strengthen public protection and public service delivery.
No politician can expect to escape criticism for a controversial decision and we have to be robust in justifying what we do.
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.
The country needs leadership driven by the dictates of national security, not the ebb and flow of political fortunes.
We do ourselves as politicians no favours if we are seen to peddle unachievable moonshine.
I believe that MPs from all parties must work together to prevent a damaging hard exit.
Any politician can talk about resuscitating public trust.
I am a Conservative, so I don't wish to be seen as a rebel, particularly, at all.
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 seeking to counter challenges such as terrorist threats, hostile state activity, or nuclear proliferation, we cannot work in isolation.
The failure to manage economic migration properly has put further pressure on transport and housing.
Whatever may have been suggested by some Leavers during the referendum it must be clear now that the Brexit process is immensely complicated.
In a mature democracy any proposed policy should be subjected to a close analysis of its likely benefits and costs.
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 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.
As a practising Anglican I go to church on a Sunday.
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.
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.
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.
Once E.U. law ceases to be supreme it is unclear how this vast body of law, which will then be incorporated into our own domestic law, will be interpreted by our own courts.
The Government has correctly recognised that this E.U. law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once.
