The Telegraph’s front page on Wednesday branded me, along with 14 of my Conservative colleagues, a “Brexit mutineer”. No matter how much they seek to strong-arm politicians, business leaders and the judiciary to conform to their narrow ideological agenda, this sort of journalistic activism, dressed up as speaking for the “will of the people”, will be called out for what it is: complete rubbish.

We have seen it all before, and no doubt will see it again. It’s reminiscent of the press barons attempting to undermine Stanley Baldwin’s leadership of the Conservative party in the 1930s, primarily instigated by Lord Rothermere (ironically, one of the key figures in the development of the Daily Mail). As then, the accusations are easily shown to ring hollow; and like Baldwin, we should not be afraid to challenge what he described as an ambition for “power, and power without responsibility”.

Politicians, like anyone in a position of authority, should be wholly accountable for the decisions they make, and must not be exempt from criticism when they get things wrong. Having been involved in politics since the 1970s, I have taken my fair share of mud-slinging over the years, but what sets apart this most recent outburst is its cynical opportunism. It is shoddy journalism at its worst.

A free press is a cornerstone of an active democracy. It can help keep people informed, ensures those of us who are elected have our feet held to the fire on the issues that really matter, and when done well, can encourage healthy debate and more engaged communities, which can only be a good thing. Journalists rightly have an incredibly important, powerful role to play, but it is one they should exercise responsibly. Many people will not understand the intricacies of the EU (withdrawal) bill, nor should they be expected to. That is the chief reason we elect politicians – to pore over the nitty-gritty of legislation with a fine-tooth comb. But for professional journalists to run with such a misleading headline, deliberate or not, displays a worrying negligence.

Let me be clear: my colleagues and I have no desire to thwart the will of the people. While many of us have made no secret of the fact we believe Brexit to be an error, we respect the result of the referendum and now want to see an orderly departure. That is why all of us, bar Ken Clarke, voted to trigger article 50 earlier this year, and why the Conservative party unanimously passed the EU (withdrawal) bill at its second reading in September. Ultimately, a technical bill of this kind is necessary if we are to incorporate the accumulated legislation of the EU into UK domestic law, providing legal certainty and continuity. It is crucial, though, that we get this right.

The amendments I and others have tabled have been drafted in a genuinely constructive manner

That means ensuring that the legislation is legally and constitutionally watertight, with rigorous safeguards in place to see that MPs are afforded ample time to scrutinise measures brought forward by ministers, and perhaps more importantly, protect parliament’s sovereignty. Ironically, this very issue has been at the vanguard of the leave crusade over the past 40 years. Does “taking back control” somehow not apply to our own parliament?

Specifically, on the question of the timing of our exit it makes absolutely no sense to back ourselves into a corner by dictating the precise hour at which we will cease to be a member of the EU. The absurdity of the government’s amendment is that it could force us to crash into a void, which the legislation included in this bill is designed to avoid, solely to appease a few hardliners and get a pat on the back from the rightwing press. Many of my colleagues, leave and remain, are agreed that’s not a risk worth taking.

The amendments I and others have tabled have been drafted in a genuinely constructive manner in the hope of strengthening the legislation rather than wrecking it. In a parliamentary democracy, that is our job: MPs are elected to scrutinise and improve government policy. Even colleagues on the frontbench have recognised that our concerns have been raised with the best of intentions, free from ulterior motive. It’s high time some areas of the pressgot up to speed on that.

Accepting the sort of journalism that intimidates MPs by labelling them, or indeed judges, “mutineers”, “traitors” and “enemies” – all epitaphs I have received – is a very slippery slope. On a practical level, it’s not only putting off many talented individuals from standing for parliament, but in our increasingly post-truth age, characterised by fake news and a ready acceptance of fiction over fact, distorts further our hold on reality, breeding an unjustified suspicion in our institutions – as all populists seek to do. At the constitutional level, it undermines the checks and balances that are a crucial part of the rule of law in an elected democracy.

We must instead work together to give people an improved vision of, and optimism in, politics and the ability of the democratic process to do good at all levels.

• Bob Neill is the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst