Anyone looking at the weekend press or some national newspapers this morning might conclude that a Brexit showdown is imminent. They suggest that the debates and votes today and tomorrow will decide whether or not Brexit is blocked and might never take place. The atmosphere is heated and full of vitriol against anyone who might obstruct it.

This is regrettable because a survey of the amendments passed by the House of Lords that are being considered shows a very different picture. Many of the Lords’ amendments have been accepted and indeed some of them were the Government’s own sensible amendments, passed after debate in the upper house. They range from adjusting the return of powers from Brussels to respect the devolution settlements, to improvements to ensure that the EU law we retain after Brexit works well for us.

The purpose of the EU 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.

As the House of Commons starts to consider those areas still in dispute, it is again the case that many are of a technical nature. I have concerns, for example, that we have given insufficient protection to areas of retained EU law that touch on equality, privacy and employment rights.

I don’t know if I will be successful in arguing for the acceptance of a Lords amendment that covers this point. But it is certainly the case that Brexit will not be stopped if a majority of my colleagues were to agree with me, any more than my colleague Oliver Letwin’s amendment to provide protection for EU-derived environmental law would do this.

There are, however, some areas where the bill has been used to address wider issues of how Brexit might best be carried out. I am pleased that we have in the Conservative Party agreed on the amendment about the desirability of a future customs agreement to enable frictionless trade to continue.

It is, of course, aspirational as we have to get the agreement in our negotiations with the EU. But if passed it will help the Prime Minister in the days ahead, just as will the one we are likely to agree on maintaining a control-free border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Then there is an amendment on ensuring that as we reach our hoped-for agreement with the EU there will be full opportunities for Parliament to carry out its role of scrutiny and approval. Perhaps inevitably with a subject of such complexity and importance to our country’s future wellbeing, there are some differences of views about how this should best be done.

I have concerns that the process should be properly structured to ensure that in the event of a “no deal”, Parliament and the Government have a full opportunity to respond in what would undoubtedly be a serious political crisis.

An amendment that has come from the Lords would do this but there have been some valid criticisms of its detail. The Government considers that it gives it insufficient latitude to make key decisions during the negotiations and that Parliament cannot be a substitute for this. I have therefore tabled an amendment that tries to reconcile these two positions which I hope may facilitate debate and an agreed outcome. But whichever model is finally enacted, none block Brexit.

"If we get Brexit wrong we will pay a heavy price in damage to our economy and national wellbeing"

Finally, there is an amendment asking the Government to consider continuing participation in the European Economic Area after Brexit. This is doubtless more difficult for the Government because it has previously ruled this out as an option because of its impact on our ability to restrict freedom of movement. But it is a legitimate subject of debate and should not just be shut down.

As the Government itself has acknowledged, there are going to have to be choices made between all the objectives it has set in the negotiations with the EU and maintaining essential access to markets with frictionless trade. We need to be pragmatic as to how this can best be achieved.

We should all be concerned therefore that the artificially created atmosphere of crisis being generated about this bill risks reducing issues to binary choices and debate to abusive name-calling. It makes poor choices more likely and masks the real issues which we have to address. In the case of some of my colleagues it now leads to daily death threats and demands that we should turn ourselves from legislators into rubber stamps for someone else’s views.

Whatever may have been suggested by some Leavers during the referendum it must be clear now that the Brexit process is immensely complicated. If we get it wrong we will pay a heavy price in damage to our economy, national wellbeing and security. If we act with logic and common sense we will maximise our opportunities. No one is going to thank us afterwards for a Brexit that reduces people’s quality of life.

These are not therefore matters on which MPs can or should abdicate responsibility by ceasing to scrutinise legislation which we have the responsibility to enact. It would undermine our freedoms and our democracy, which are the very things which we are sent to Parliament to uphold.

I very much hope that these two days will see us in Parliament do just that. But this is going to involve us all standing up to those intent on stopping us from doing so.