The public are not fools.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Trade wars in which countries are then obliged to retaliate by raising their own tariffs against the initiator undermine growth and hurt consumers. Far from being expressions of strength they highlight the failure of the initiating country's economic sector to compete in the global market place.

Whatever may have been suggested by some Leavers during the referendum it must be clear now that the Brexit process is immensely complicated.

The purpose of the E.U. Withdrawal Bill is in any event not to decide the terms of Brexit but to ensure that it can take place smoothly and that legal continuity, which is essential for businesses, is maintained. There is not a single MP who does not agree that getting the bill on the statute book is essential for us all.

No amount of extra civil servants recruited to deliver Brexit will make up for a lack of rational debate or for political judgments distorted by a desire to sound tough in order to appeal to narrow sectional interests.

No politician can expect to escape criticism for a controversial decision and we have to be robust in justifying what we do.

Notice of leaving the E.U. under Article 50, for which most of us voted, provides a mechanism for extending the negotiating period by agreement if this is necessary. It is not to undermine Brexit to insist it is carried out correctly.

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.

Whatever long-term advantages are claimed for Brexit it is overwhelmingly clear that in the short to medium term it carries risks to our economy and security.

Putting the Withdrawal Bill in order is an essential step to stability and achieving a reasonable outcome to Brexit.

Some in favour of Brexit are so fixated on leaving the E.U., they keep arguing that any attempt to change it is some form of sabotage.

We then need to consider carefully how the E.U. law that is going to be imported into our own law will operate. Its processes and interpretation have always been different from our own domestic law.

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.

The Government has correctly recognised that this E.U. law cannot all be changed into domestic law at once.

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.