Play | Topics | Authors | Random

Danh ngôn của Dominic Grieve (Sứ mệnh: 7)

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.
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.
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.
Any politician can talk about resuscitating public trust.
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.
Intelligence is fragmentary and hard to discover, so it is by joining forces and sharing information with our allies that we maximise our ability to protect ourselves.
Including myself, it is now clear that there is a significant group of Conservative MPs who think that a People's Vote - a vote on the final form Brexit will take, is absolutely indispensable for the future wellbeing of our country.
A no deal Brexit is a proposal so damaging to our future that it cannot be accepted.
The country needs leadership driven by the dictates of national security, not the ebb and flow of political fortunes.
Political parties depend for existence and success, not so much on the holding of identical views, as on a shared philosophy and ties of loyalty and respect between members. So there are good reasons to try to find compromises when differences emerge on a specific matter.
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.
As has been the case throughout the history of terrorism, government anxiety centres on what to do about those against whom there may be intelligence but no usable evidence.
There is a certain belief that so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or libel. This is mistaken.
Our personal data belongs to us. Government holds it on trust.
Surveillance legislation passed in good faith has been stretched well beyond its original purpose.
I worry that there are attempts to push faith out of the public space. Clearly it happens at a level of local power.
Some of the cases which have come to light of employers being disciplined or sacked for simply trying to talk about their faith in the workplace I find quite extraordinary. The sanitisation will lead to people of faith excluding themselves from the public space and being excluded.
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.
I do worry about population growth and the preservation of the green belt space but I don't think these are insurmountable problems.
The principles of conservatism include upholding the rule of law and the United Kingdom's international legal obligations.