Cumbrian MP and Justice Minister Rory Stewart has today revealed the abuse he has faced over his support for Theresa May's Brexit deal.

Yet he insists he still believes it is the right thing to do.

He has also issued a strong warning against a second referendum, saying it will cause deeper divisions across the UK.

Read his full statement here:

"Every day I am told that my support for the Prime-Minister’s Brexit deal makes me a traitor to my constituents and nation. Some messages are from UKIP; about half from 'remainers'. Each assumes that they alone truly speak for 'the people', and that only a knave, or a coward could fail to implement their will. A Brexiteer wrote 'There’s nothing remotely British about MPs who sell their country to a hostile foreign power, you lying treacherous remoaner scumbag'. A remainer tweeted that I should be ‘first against the wall’.

"We now stand divided - North against South, Scotland against England, old against young – with neither side taking seriously the other’s values, or identity. The strongest argument for the Brexit deal is that is addresses these divisions. It can only do so because it begins by acknowledging that - whether or not a referendum should have been held in the first place - every single member of parliament, and the government itself, promised to uphold the result of a referendum; and that 52 per cent voted for Brexit and 48 per cent for Remain. In rehearsing this, I am of course angering those who assert – partly on the grounds that the public was poorly informed, and that politicians are liars – that the first referendum was invalid. And who seek – partly on the grounds that the public, if not politicians, have changed - to solve the problems of the first referendum through holding a second. But this is because I believe they are underestimating the damage of a second referendum.

"Anyone holding a second referendum is gambling 'no-Brexit or no-deal'. Either would be significantly worse than the PM’s deal for the losing side. If Remain won, the campaign for a third referendum would begin at once. Britain would limp back into Europe, seeking to return to the family half way through the divorce proceedings, with the Europeans and international investors pityingly aware that there was already a campaign to leave once more, and with many new, more radical parties taking the argument to the streets under the banner of betrayal. Divisions would be deepened not resolved.

"Ambivalence about Europe reflects long-standing aspects of our political culture, which cannot be simply wished away. Britain must now take the space to examine honestly what relationship it wants and can sustain with Europe. It must do this not on the level of theory but in detail – discussing trade not simply as ‘prosperity’ but through analysing real car factories, safe level of nitrogen dioxide emissions, and practical proposals on how to handle checks on rules of origin. It must examine the composition, drivers and impacts of immigration in more than purely economic terms. And it must develop our diplomatic relationship with Europe not through platitudes about values, but through investigating real choices in places such as Turkey or the Western Balkans. All this work on the future relationship must be done in a decade in which the European Union will itself be integrating or unravelling in unpredictable ways. And the best place from which to do this (in part out of respect for Europe itself) is in a relationship that is close to Europe, without being in the European Union.

"Hence, the Prime-Minister’s deal – which acknowledges the outcome of the referendum by withdrawing from EU political institutions (and the arguments – however implausible and archaic – about ever closer union or a European army); and which acknowledges that most Brexiteers expected to end free movement of people (which makes a pure Norway option impossible). But which also addresses the concerns of the 16 million who voted Remain, by retaining deep links to the European markets, and continuing to work very closely with European nations, from the frontiers of science, to the frontiers of Russia.

"Even though we have had to acknowledge that there isn't currently the parliamentary majority for this deal and the Prime Minister is going back to Brussels to negotiate with a focus on the backstop we will have to accept that the final deal will still look a great deal like this deal. Most of the 'alternatives' in parliament claim like hers to represent the middle ground; but unlike hers, they are only broad guesses about what could be negotiated with Europe – whereas hers is an actual agreement that has been reached after two years and many thousands of hours of practical negotiation.

"A Brexit deal will never please those who want no Brexit or no deal. But this must be the most pragmatic and moderate response to a deeply polarised nation, to an uncertain geopolitical future, and to fundamental features of our national culture. Which is why I remain convinced that logic will prevail. It may do so in the end through parliamentary arithmetic. But the result will neatly, if inadvertently, reflect much deeper British traditions of pragmatism and compromise, and a justified and longstanding suspicion of neat, but divisive, solutions."