A Quote by Dominic Grieve

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.
Having campaigned to remain in the E.U., I voted to trigger Article 50, in response to the clearly expressed wish of the electorate. It must now be my duty as an MP to try to ensure that Brexit is as smooth as possible and that there is a sound legislative framework in place to bring this about. A chaotic departure is in no-one's interest.
We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with the United States. We will be negotiating agreements with India and China. We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Mercosur, South America. So there are a number of these trade agreements in the major markets of the world.
It is amusing to discover, in the twentieth century, that the quarrels between two lovers, two mathematicians, two nations, two economic systems, usually assumed insoluble in a finite period should exhibit one mechanism, the semantic mechanism of identification - the discovery of which makes universal agreement possible, in mathematics and in life.
'Fast Food Nation' appeared as an article in 'Rolling Stone' before it was a book, so I was extending it from the article, and by that time, everyone could read the article.
I was on 'X Factor' the day after the Brexit vote. People voted for Brexit. But the public also voted for me, they wanted me to be there and part of the music industry. I haven't felt any bad effects.
Leaving people worse off financially is a Brexit outcome nobody supports, whether they voted leave or remain.
There is a sense of resignation among most people who voted Remain that we have to 'man up' - even the women among us - and make the most of what we know will be a rotten Brexit.
I fought for MPs to have the right to vote on article 50 not because I was against Brexit, but because I was, and remain passionately, an advocate of parliamentary sovereignty.
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.
I never doubted that our parliamentarians would vote to trigger article 50 but I expected a detailed, pragmatic debate around the options of how to execute Brexit and the processes involved.
Of course, the UK is a significant economy that makes up a quarter of American exports to the EU, more than 50 percent of our exports in certain sectors and over 25 percent of the government procurement opportunities we have in Europe. Brexit reduces the size of the TTIP deal for the United States, and there will need to be an adjustment of expectations accordingly, but Brexit underscores the value of reaching an agreement at this critical moment in the evolution of Europe.
No one voted for a Brexit that will tie us to the E.U.'s customs rules and prevent us striking meaningful trade deals of our own.
Against the background of the Obama administration' s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation's history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.
The case for Brexit was made on rhetorical flourishes and promises and bluster. A lot of promises on which people voted have turned out to be undeliverable. It was a false prospectus.
The British could leave and half India wouldn't notice us leaving just as they didn't notice us arriving. All our reforms of administration might be reforms on the moon for all it has to do with them.
Brexit has given us the start of a conversation with people who perhaps haven't traditionally voted Conservative.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!