A Quote by Priti Patel

Instead of embracing change, the E.U.'s precautionary principle has held back progress. — © Priti Patel
Instead of embracing change, the E.U.'s precautionary principle has held back progress.
Change based on principle is progress. Constant change without principle becomes chaos.
One thing standing in the way of further progress for many men is the same obstacle that held women back for so long: overinvestment in their gender identity instead of their individual personhood.
Franklin Roosevelt didn't poll, because he had great political instincts. Now we have polls; we don't need instincts. But is that a change in principle? Is it a change in principle that we use a Xerox instead of carbon paper? It's of the same order of magnitude.
Because we aren't certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.
No precautions, and no precautionary principle, can avoid problems that we do not yet foresee. We need a stance of problem-fixing, not just problem-avoidance.
The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held; instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
Principle #6: Recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress.
One day I'll be appreciated for what I do instead being held back for what I don't do.
Innovation doesn't come from one big thing, it comes from a piece at a time, from combining existing technology. We have in a sense a stagnation, in all those areas where we have cronyism and political correctness and the precautionary principle. Get all of those together, then yeah, you have stagnation, and that's what we're seeing.
It is possible to believe in progress as a fact without believing in progress as an ethical principle; but in the catechism of many Americans, the one goes with the other.
Change is scientific; progress is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.
We haven't developed what some have called the precautionary principle which will say look, if there's a reason, if a product is safe, that's fine, but it's really the responsibility of an industry to tell us it's safe and to make sure it's safe. It's not our responsibility to wait until the damage is done.
Change does not necessarily assure progress, but progress implacably requires change.
You can’t change the tale so that you turned left one day instead of right, or didn’t make the mistake that might have saved your life a day later. We don’t get those choices. The story is what got you here, and embracing its truth is what makes the outcome bearable.
Rather than embracing mainstream, majority-held positions, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have made it exceedingly clear that they will sacrifice themselves on the altar of the radical left - endorsing positions held by a select few and fueling an unstoppable tailwind behind President Trump's reelection.
No civilisation, not even that of ancient Greece, has ever undergone such a continuous and profound process of change as Western Europe has done during the last 900 years. It is impossible to explain this fact in purely economic terms by a materialistic interpretation of history. The principle of change has been a spiritual one and the progress of Western civilisation is intimately related to the dynamic ethos of Western Christianity, which has gradually made Western man conscious of his moral responsibility and his duty to change the world.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!