Or Mr McKinley.. at 3:30 ........ "Why would we stop any traffic into the UK?" Perhaps because you want to take back control over your own borders? Or because you want to end the free movement of people? Or because you want to have FTA's with countries who want to know the origin of goods? Or maybe you want to impose taxes, VAT, for instance on goods entering the country?
Well, if everybody is obeying the import rules you do not really have to check, do you? Like if everybody is obeying the laws you do not really need a police force. Obvious problem is not everybody is that obedient and as long as you do not check you'll never know whether the rules are violated or not. The NI border is really a big problem.
Just think - that last woman is pretty stupid, but she is allowed to vote. And I'll bet she did. Someone, with that little intelligence, is voting on the future of other UK people......
My opinion is that all people, also those with low intelligence, should be allowed to vote. But if you say yourself you don't know or don't care, please don't vote.
“The stupidity of the English” the country that’s has the many of worlds best universities and has overtaken Germany in growth. The uk chose to leave the EU, get over it
3:47 We don't have to check them... 4:02 Well...then all the other countries would want the same. I guess chlorinated chicken and melamine enriched milk will also be OK. 5:06 Oh, WTF?
3:48 " We don't have to check them" ( UK would be the the only country in the world with doesn't check there incoming goods). The EU will most defently check the goods with will come in from the UK. So you will have at least a delay there. And if you don't check your incoming goods how will you charge VAT? Or Custum? You could say we will put traffis to 0% for the EU so you don't have to check them, but then rest of th e will want the same.
You have to give them that is a basic rule of WTO. You can have 0% tarifs with other countries if you make bilateral agreements like for ex. EU - Japan. They take years to make and UK doesn't have any (it uses the ones EU have, but they are only for members). So they will have to trade under WTO rules if there is no deal with EU and that is a big problem... hard brexit is a big problem alteast in the economic aspect.
Hauke Holst I don’t understand how these idiots can, on the one hand, claim there will be no checks and, on the other, maintain we are leaving to secure our borders. It’s just insane.
If we leave the border open to the EU after a no deal we have to do the same for all other countries. That means our markets get flooded with cheap imports, manufacturing and farming are destroyed and our economy nosedives.
Goods needs to clear 2 customs. First on border where they make T1 document and second in custom terminal inside of country. Time to make T1 document is at least 30 min or more, depend how much truck allready w8ing for it. And time to clear custom inside of country can take hours. Its a lit bit faster in France because export procedure is faster, but all together stacks and truck if loaded in Paris one day, will clear custom in England next day or even day after. Extra day transport and custom duites will rise expances up to 20%.
It could be more the 20%, you might manage 20% when you send a whole truck. For example if i have a shipment (lets say 2 pallet 700kg) from Germany to Switzerland i pay 350€ incl the forwarders fee for the T1 (if there ist tariffs the customer covers it. Form a similar shipment from germany to france I pay 150-180€.
Dover did Okay before the foundation of the EU ( Common Market ), and I see no reason why it would simply cease to exist after Britain leaves. As an ex international truck driver of many many years , I went Dover - Calais - Dover, many hundreds of times.
No deal is going to be a mess. Pretty much everything in going across borders requiers a deal of some sort, and these can be complex. Take for example car insurance. In the EU this is done on the basis that every country has pretty much the same (eu) laws, the judges judicate the same and the ecj is the ultimate judge. But this will not work if a country does not accept eu law, or the ecj. The only other solution is when an accident happens the foreigner is put in jail untill the matter is resolved. Therefore, uk people will need eu insurance before comming to the eu. And this is just one example. The car needs to be of eu standards, as does the fuel, the driver license, medical insurance, ... the list is endless. All of these can be resolved if the two agree on what laws are mandatory and which judge gets the final say (ecj?), but with a no deal....
I thought it was funny how that dumb blond was like where a strong and independent country we don't need help from anyone...………….. ahahhhhahahahaha ur navy is litearlly a joke over hald the fleet is constantly being repaired and the new air craft carrier they just built barely has enough ships to accompany it lol let alone enough fight jets for both carriers lol. ur not strong or independent, god those women are litearlly the definition of stupid
No checks mean no idea of quantity of goods and so what tier of tariffs to apply once a quota is reached. Other WTO members will object as such a practice would be discriminating against them.
So you want more control over your borders, but you also want to keep the border open? Also according to WTO rules, that brexiteers love: You are not allowed to discriminate. If you let EU goods flow in without inspection, you need to let Brazilian, or Nigerian goods flow in the very same way.
Why should the trucks stowed in dover wanting to enter the UK? (They are probably more in Calais) In Dover dam the trucks that want to enter the EU ...
No disrespect to the accent, but when she says about ‘foot passenger’ and it sounds like ‘food passenger’ and it does make me think about the issue of human trafficking. The attraction of the UK, given that the country speaks English, coupled with the laissez-fair attitude to economics potentially leads to the exploitation of many immigrants to the UK from the east of Europe. The legitimate jobs and such is good but controlling borders is in everyone’s interest to stop more nefarious activities.
The % of cargo checked is quite small for EU and non-EU, it has been for years. There are several nearby locations suitable to store large trucks (and I don't mean the M20). We could conduct routine checks away from Dover (prior to going into the 'Common Market' we had such arrangements) freeing up our port for 'anti-smuggling' checks. Okay UK traders might suffer for a while, but how many days before pressure from French, German and other European businesses force the french authorities to ease up?
What do you mean by "They sell far more to us than we buy from them"? READ IT AGAIN !! Do you understand what you are writing? How do they sell something to you if you don´t buy it?
Believe me, NOBODY wants to invade the UK. The Spanish armada would rather sink itself than invade. Napoleon shrunk a few inches only thinking about England. Even Hitler changed his mind and cancelled "operation Seelöwe". Odd food, odd people, odd habits, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. Really, nobody wants to go there.
Europe needs our ££££££££££ are better than their Euros, we buy more than Italy, Greece and Spain Their produce and perishable goods will rote with no one to buy. While we can grow our own free from fertilisers and Monsanto, Frankestain technologies. We are the Champions my friendsssss.
The world has problems for one simple reason, it can't control the number of people on the world. Dover port is going to be crammed with trucks. why is that. because the UK is over populated. the less people you have on the island then the less trucks you will need. over 40% of our food is imported because we do not have the land to grow it. so if we reduce our numbers we will be able to support ourselves, which should be the aim of every country, we will not need to go to other countries to get food to feed us. these of the benefits for reducing our population. 1) Solving the housing problem. 2) Solving our energy and water problems, and our food problem we will be having. 3) solving our congestion problems. 4) Giving our children better education because of the less children in each class meaning that the teacher will have more time to spend with each pupil. 5) Meaning will not have to keep endlessly building homes for the endless number of people, we can protect our wildlife and their habitat. 6) meaning there is less people we will not have to build tower blocks, we can all live in houses and not so close to each other we can have space between each house. 7) There will be no need to keep destroying our environment by embracing more and more dangerous methods to meet our energy needs. 8) This will reduce crime and poverty which will create a safer and healthier environment to live in. 9) Creating a community spirit once again where everybody works for the good of everybody else unlike today where everybody works for the good of themselves by using everybody else. 10) Not overwhelming and NHS and doctor's surgeries. given the doctor more time with each patient which equals better care. These are just some of the benefits of reducing our population , I can think of off the top of my head.
When somebody intelligent talks about depopulation, why do people like you come back with stupid childish remarks, is it because your brain is not capable of dealing with the problem of overpopulation intelligently, so you revert back to a childish response like, cannibalism, or the other favourite Hitler. when are you people going to grow up . is the answer never, Are you going to live your entire life stuck in child mode. You are like 98% of the world population who claims to be intelligent people, okay" then I challenge you and anybody else reading this to prove it. I'm going to ask you and any other child reading this, two simple questions. Question One, Do you believe you can endlessly put something into something that is not endless.................YES/NO! Question Two, Do you believe a stationary object can keep up with something that is constantly moving.......YES /NO! Because you are all caiming to be intelligent then you will answer NO! to these two questions If you answer NO to these two questions, it means you either understand what's going on and the reason why it is going on, or you are lying you haven't a clue you're just pretending to understand because it makes you look good on the world stage.. which of course 98% of the children out there who do. If you say you honestly do understand that the answer is NO to these two questions. Then my third question to you is, why then do you embrace a system that answer YES to these two questions? If you vote. Then why do you vote people in to govern you who believe that the answer is YES to these two questions? The reason your society is in the mess it is in, is because 98% of you think the answer to these two questions is YES. But it's not, the answer is NO! If society and the people you vote in to govern you could work on the truth to these two questions which is NO, then you wouldn't be in the mess you are in, it is that simple. I wonder how many of you children out there can understand what I have just written? or have I just gone right over your head. well the answer is simple specially with you and your cannibalism responds. how can children grasp reality when they constantly live in a world of fantasy. Where it doesn't matter how old they are , they are still behaving like children. you're the prime example that backs me up on that statement.
So how are you going to reduce your population ? Mandatory use of preservatives ? The one-child-only rule as in China ? You are surely not thinking of banning all the foreigners ?
you have just shown how unintelligent you are by asking such a question when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. well it is for somebody as intelligent and logical as me. and that's not blowing my trumpet either that is just dealing with facts. I will explain it to you as briefly as possible. When you have a problem the only way to solve it is to back engineer it to its source. for that's where you solve the problem not chasing after it throwing money at it. So you solve the problem by stopping it from starting, this principle is used in every problem to solve it throughout engineering, electrica,l mechanical ,building constructions, mapping everything even surgery. this process is used to solve the problem. So once you've back engineered it to its source you do something physically to stop it from starting, because you know that to allow it to start the problem will grow and then create more problems and they will grow into more problems until you become infested with problems. What do all the countries of the world have in common, they are all infested with problems they can't solve. the reason they can't solve them because they are too emotional like you that's not being disrespectful that's dealing with the truth, I am communicating with someone that is governed by their emotions like 98% of the human population, so it is I that is unique not you. that's why you can't see the answer to the question because you are an emotional person. I'm not, I'm logical that's why I can solve 99.99% of the human's problems. To reduce the world population, it is very simple, in fact it is the most simplest thing to do, you bring in a law based on what people everywhere say about children especially women. You say that the health and safety of your children is paramount to you. The word paramount" means to be the most important, to put before all else, to be number one on the list. there is your answer to reducing the world population by eradicating child poverty across the world. you start in a small country's first and build up to the bigger countries. So first of all you have to identify who is creating child poverty which is a big problem worldwide. it's very simple, it is women, for is it not true women have children and only women have children. so there is where your problem starts, your starting point, women having children in an environment that they have no business having children in which of course is causing billions of children across the world to be forced into poverty, Poverty and crime go hand-in-hand. over 90% of all your crime comes from poverty which of course women create, by bringing a child into an unsuitable environment which create child poverty and no end of other problems which stem from it. So you bring a law that is based on the statement from society, That the Health and Safety of our Children is PARAMOUNT!, so that law will state no woman will be allowed to have a child if she is unemployed, homeless or her or our partner are drug addicts, alcoholics or criminals, the earliest a woman can produce a child will be 20 years of age this will eradicate child and teenage pregnancies. she will have to show she has the financial ability to afford that child, she will also have to choose between motherhood and a full-time job she will not have both. that law would solve one hell of a lot of problems not only child poverty. Now why would women back this law up, because of that statement they keep repeating, the health and safety of our children is paramount! that is why they'll accept that law, To protect the children because the children's welfare is more important than the right of a woman to have a child. that act alone would reduce the world population slowly in a constructive way. and for any woman to refused to accept that law, she would be saying she doesn't care a crap about the welfare of children. so I would have women over a barrel, they would show their true face, because women do not care about their children, that why there is 4 million children living in poverty in the UK alone which backs me up. Not only would it reduce the population, it will eradicate child poverty, that means oddly any children going to foster homes and none would be dumped on the street, it will eradicate 90% of all crime, this law would also get rid of congestion, solve the housing problem, our food water energy problems, protect our wildlife and their habitats, and our environment, and our future. because the human population would be stabilised. that means no more increasing in the ageing population, it be stable so you good plan years ahead indefinitely for the elderly people. I've accomplished all this with a simple law based on what society especially women say about how important the health and safety of their child is to them, it is paramount. There you have it, I haven't marched people to the concentration camps, I haven't picked up babies on bayonets and thrown them into fires, I have brought a logical solution to a major problem, and I have done it by using the statement from society about how important the health and safety of their children is to them. Meaning the world population all claim they are intelligent people, then intelligent people will accept an intelligent Law especially one that protects children from physical abuse and poverty, only greedy selfish women will not accept an intelligent law like this, because they think they are more important than the welfare of their children they freely choose to bring into the world, for nobody forces a woman to have children you remember that. specially not in a civilised countries where she is own boss making her own decisions. Would you accept a law like this to protect children or are you one of the greedy selfish people who believe women have the right to bring children into the world at Any age, Anywhere, Anytime and any number regardless of the suffering they create for them children. Get back to me Let's see how much you care about the welfare of children would you back these laws up to protect children from unnecessary suffering. or do you think women are more important than the welfare of children and should be allowed to have them when ever they like? that goes for anybody else that's taken the time to read this. which do you think is more important which should come first the want of a woman or the health and safety of the child.
That last woman sums it all up:
You think it is better to be outside the European Union? _Yeah definitely_
And why is that? _.... well, I dunno_
Or Mr McKinley.. at 3:30 ........ "Why would we stop any traffic into the UK?"
Perhaps because you want to take back control over your own borders?
Or because you want to end the free movement of people?
Or because you want to have FTA's with countries who want to know the origin of goods?
Or maybe you want to impose taxes, VAT, for instance on goods entering the country?
Well, if everybody is obeying the import rules you do not really have to check, do you?
Like if everybody is obeying the laws you do not really need a police force.
Obvious problem is not everybody is that obedient and as long as you do not check you'll never know whether the rules are violated or not. The NI border is really a big problem.
Just think - that last woman is pretty stupid, but she is allowed to vote.
And I'll bet she did.
Someone, with that little intelligence, is voting on the future of other UK people......
My opinion is that all people, also those with low intelligence, should be allowed to vote.
But if you say yourself you don't know or don't care, please don't vote.
@@Michiel_de_Jong But unfortunately the E.U. will be checking our exports to them!
@2:38 - guy saying - What has the EU ever done for Dover? - sums up the stupidity of the English.
the wall with scotland. now pay it
“The stupidity of the English” the country that’s has the many of worlds best universities and has overtaken Germany in growth. The uk chose to leave the EU, get over it
Brexit in a nutshell:
"Take back control of our border!"
...
...
"Why do we have to check the border?"
3:47 We don't have to check them...
4:02 Well...then all the other countries would want the same.
I guess chlorinated chicken and melamine enriched milk will also be OK.
5:06 Oh, WTF?
Brexiteers said they want controls on border, it seems they meant NO CONTROL AT ALL 🤣🤣
the UK is not an island ,
it has a land border
LOL
3:48 " We don't have to check them" ( UK would be the the only country in the world with doesn't check there incoming goods). The EU will most defently check the goods with will come in from the UK. So you will have at least a delay there.
And if you don't check your incoming goods how will you charge VAT?
Or Custum?
You could say we will put traffis to 0% for the EU so you don't have to check them, but then rest of th e will want the same.
You have to give them that is a basic rule of WTO. You can have 0% tarifs with other countries if you make bilateral agreements like for ex. EU - Japan. They take years to make and UK doesn't have any (it uses the ones EU have, but they are only for members). So they will have to trade under WTO rules if there is no deal with EU and that is a big problem... hard brexit is a big problem alteast in the economic aspect.
Hauke Holst I don’t understand how these idiots can, on the one hand, claim there will be no checks and, on the other, maintain we are leaving to secure our borders. It’s just insane.
Stephen Jones-Williams and there is your answer
...and if you put zero percent tarriff on everything then where's the incentive for other countries to make trade deals when it's already at zero??
B K good point 😀
Dover not going to check incoming lorries boys. Send your drugs and immigrants. They are quite happy with EU quality and standards. LMAO
Ah what a tragedy.
Yes, for the EU.
Britain will be fine.
@@juniorbullock838 Loool fine tearing up all trade agreements we have. Bye bye just in time industries. Hello port chaos and empty shelves.
The USA will be happy to have a trade agreement but it will be on American terms and conditions.
The closest point to the rest of the EU if you ignore Ireland.
If we leave the border open to the EU after a no deal we have to do the same for all other countries. That means our markets get flooded with cheap imports, manufacturing and farming are destroyed and our economy nosedives.
I love her accent!!
A Smugglers paradise coming soon near you
Esp in Northern Ireland.
Goods needs to clear 2 customs. First on border where they make T1 document and second in custom terminal inside of country. Time to make T1 document is at least 30 min or more, depend how much truck allready w8ing for it. And time to clear custom inside of country can take hours. Its a lit bit faster in France because export procedure is faster, but all together stacks and truck if loaded in Paris one day, will clear custom in England next day or even day after. Extra day transport and custom duites will rise expances up to 20%.
It could be more the 20%, you might manage 20% when you send a whole truck. For example if i have a shipment (lets say 2 pallet 700kg) from Germany to Switzerland i pay 350€ incl the forwarders fee for the T1 (if there ist tariffs the customer covers it. Form a similar shipment from germany to france I pay 150-180€.
I love CNBC explains I watch all the videos
Dover did Okay before the foundation of the EU ( Common Market ), and I see no reason why it would simply cease to exist after Britain leaves. As an ex international truck driver of many many years , I went Dover - Calais - Dover, many hundreds of times.
Brexit is going to hurt us?
Brexit wont give border control?
Why did we vote for it?
Well it will be surely a mess, if everything has to be inspected!
No deal is going to be a mess. Pretty much everything in going across borders requiers a deal of some sort, and these can be complex.
Take for example car insurance. In the EU this is done on the basis that every country has pretty much the same (eu) laws, the judges judicate the same and the ecj is the ultimate judge. But this will not work if a country does not accept eu law, or the ecj. The only other solution is when an accident happens the foreigner is put in jail untill the matter is resolved.
Therefore, uk people will need eu insurance before comming to the eu. And this is just one example. The car needs to be of eu standards, as does the fuel, the driver license, medical insurance, ... the list is endless.
All of these can be resolved if the two agree on what laws are mandatory and which judge gets the final say (ecj?), but with a no deal....
I thought it was funny how that dumb blond was like where a strong and independent country we don't need help from anyone...………….. ahahhhhahahahaha ur navy is litearlly a joke over hald the fleet is constantly being repaired and the new air craft carrier they just built barely has enough ships to accompany it lol let alone enough fight jets for both carriers lol. ur not strong or independent, god those women are litearlly the definition of stupid
Silvia, esse sotaque Português não engana ninguém
Brexit or not l shall go to visit Great Britain
We will find out soon enough.
No checks mean no idea of quantity of goods and so what tier of tariffs to apply once a quota is reached. Other WTO members will object as such a practice would be discriminating against them.
So you want more control over your borders, but you also want to keep the border open? Also according to WTO rules, that brexiteers love: You are not allowed to discriminate. If you let EU goods flow in without inspection, you need to let Brazilian, or Nigerian goods flow in the very same way.
Wooow! I just love her style of talking 😘😍
Absolutely nothing changed. CNBC is SOOOO woke!!!!
Why should the trucks stowed in dover wanting to enter the UK? (They are probably more in Calais)
In Dover dam the trucks that want to enter the EU ...
Looking at the politicians response and the last lady's response, I can see why the united kingdom is going to be in trouble
No disrespect to the accent, but when she says about ‘foot passenger’ and it sounds like ‘food passenger’ and it does make me think about the issue of human trafficking.
The attraction of the UK, given that the country speaks English, coupled with the laissez-fair attitude to economics potentially leads to the exploitation of many immigrants to the UK from the east of Europe. The legitimate jobs and such is good but controlling borders is in everyone’s interest to stop more nefarious activities.
Immingham is the top earning port in the UK. Immingham faces the North Sea, NOT FRANCE>
wow, the subscribe begging at the very end caught me by surprise :)
Bull shit we leaving
how much concrete will it take to block that rat run up?
Italian beauty ❤
Such a Gorgeous.. Woman😘
What a mess...😰
The % of cargo checked is quite small for EU and non-EU, it has been for years. There are several nearby locations suitable to store large trucks (and I don't mean the M20). We could conduct routine checks away from Dover (prior to going into the 'Common Market' we had such arrangements) freeing up our port for 'anti-smuggling' checks. Okay UK traders might suffer for a while, but how many days before pressure from French, German and other European businesses force the french authorities to ease up?
What do you mean by "They sell far more to us than we buy from them"? READ IT AGAIN !! Do you understand what you are writing?
How do they sell something to you if you don´t buy it?
And the best land point to be invaded 😂😂😂😂😂
Believe me, NOBODY wants to invade the UK. The Spanish armada would rather sink itself than invade. Napoleon shrunk a few inches only thinking about England. Even Hitler changed his mind and cancelled "operation Seelöwe". Odd food, odd people, odd habits, such as driving on the wrong side of the road. Really, nobody wants to go there.
@@flitsertheo It's probably better than the third world shithole you come from.
Sorry but I don't live in the UK.
Silvia❤💖😘
Stop Brexit, ohhh. Can’t we just ask the French to speak English?
Europe needs our ££££££££££ are better than their Euros, we buy more than Italy, Greece and Spain
Their produce and perishable goods will rote with no one to buy. While we can grow our own free from fertilisers and Monsanto, Frankestain technologies. We are the Champions my friendsssss.
The world has problems for one simple reason, it can't control the number of people on the world. Dover port is going to be crammed with trucks. why is that. because the UK is over populated. the less people you have on the island then the less trucks you will need. over 40% of our food is imported because we do not have the land to grow it. so if we reduce our numbers we will be able to support ourselves, which should be the aim of every country, we will not need to go to other countries to get food to feed us.
these of the benefits for reducing our population.
1) Solving the housing problem.
2) Solving our energy and water problems, and our food problem we will be having.
3) solving our congestion problems.
4) Giving our children better education because of the less children in each class meaning that the teacher will have more time to spend with each pupil.
5) Meaning will not have to keep endlessly building homes for the endless number of people, we can protect our wildlife and their habitat.
6) meaning there is less people we will not have to build tower blocks, we can all live in houses and not so close to each other we can have space between each house.
7) There will be no need to keep destroying our environment by embracing more and more dangerous methods to meet our energy needs.
8) This will reduce crime and poverty which will create a safer and healthier environment to live in.
9) Creating a community spirit once again where everybody works for the good of everybody else unlike today where everybody works for the good of themselves by using everybody else.
10) Not overwhelming and NHS and doctor's surgeries. given the doctor more time with each patient which equals better care.
These are just some of the benefits of reducing our population , I can think of off the top of my head.
So what are you proposing exactly? Cannibalism?
When somebody intelligent talks about depopulation, why do people like you come back with stupid childish remarks, is it because your brain is not capable of dealing with the problem of overpopulation intelligently, so you revert back to a childish response like, cannibalism, or the other favourite Hitler. when are you people going to grow up . is the answer never, Are you going to live your entire life stuck in child mode.
You are like 98% of the world population who claims to be intelligent people, okay" then I challenge you and anybody else reading this to prove it.
I'm going to ask you and any other child reading this, two simple questions.
Question One, Do you believe you can endlessly put something into something that is not endless.................YES/NO!
Question Two, Do you believe a stationary object can keep up with something that is constantly moving.......YES /NO!
Because you are all caiming to be intelligent then you will answer NO! to these two questions If you answer NO to these two questions, it means you either understand what's going on and the reason why it is going on, or you are lying you haven't a clue you're just pretending to understand because it makes you look good on the world stage.. which of course 98% of the children out there who do.
If you say you honestly do understand that the answer is NO to these two questions. Then my third question to you is, why then do you embrace a system that answer YES to these two questions?
If you vote. Then why do you vote people in to govern you who believe that the answer is YES to these two questions?
The reason your society is in the mess it is in, is because 98% of you think the answer to these two questions is YES. But it's not, the answer is NO!
If society and the people you vote in to govern you could work on the truth to these two questions which is NO, then you wouldn't be in the mess you are in, it is that simple.
I wonder how many of you children out there can understand what I have just written? or have I just gone right over your head.
well the answer is simple specially with you and your cannibalism responds. how can children grasp reality when they constantly live in a world of fantasy. Where it doesn't matter how old they are , they are still behaving like children. you're the prime example that backs me up on that statement.
So how are you going to reduce your population ? Mandatory use of preservatives ? The one-child-only rule as in China ? You are surely not thinking of banning all the foreigners ?
you have just shown how unintelligent you are by asking such a question when the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. well it is for somebody as intelligent and logical as me. and that's not blowing my trumpet either that is just dealing with facts.
I will explain it to you as briefly as possible.
When you have a problem the only way to solve it is to back engineer it to its source. for that's where you solve the problem not chasing after it throwing money at it. So you solve the problem by stopping it from starting, this principle is used in every problem to solve it throughout engineering, electrica,l mechanical ,building constructions, mapping everything even surgery. this process is used to solve the problem.
So once you've back engineered it to its source you do something physically to stop it from starting, because you know that to allow it to start the problem will grow and then create more problems and they will grow into more problems until you become infested with problems.
What do all the countries of the world have in common, they are all infested with problems they can't solve. the reason they can't solve them because they are too emotional like you that's not being disrespectful that's dealing with the truth, I am communicating with someone that is governed by their emotions like 98% of the human population, so it is I that is unique not you. that's why you can't see the answer to the question because you are an emotional person. I'm not, I'm logical that's why I can solve 99.99% of the human's problems.
To reduce the world population, it is very simple, in fact it is the most simplest thing to do, you bring in a law based on what people everywhere say about children especially women. You say that the health and safety of your children is paramount to you. The word paramount" means to be the most important, to put before all else, to be number one on the list. there is your answer to reducing the world population by eradicating child poverty across the world. you start in a small country's first and build up to the bigger countries.
So first of all you have to identify who is creating child poverty which is a big problem worldwide. it's very simple, it is women, for is it not true women have children and only women have children. so there is where your problem starts, your starting point, women having children in an environment that they have no business having children in which of course is causing billions of children across the world to be forced into poverty, Poverty and crime go hand-in-hand. over 90% of all your crime comes from poverty which of course women create, by bringing a child into an unsuitable environment which create child poverty and no end of other problems which stem from it.
So you bring a law that is based on the statement from society, That the Health and Safety of our Children is PARAMOUNT!, so that law will state no woman will be allowed to have a child if she is unemployed, homeless or her or our partner are drug addicts, alcoholics or criminals, the earliest a woman can produce a child will be 20 years of age this will eradicate child and teenage pregnancies. she will have to show she has the financial ability to afford that child, she will also have to choose between motherhood and a full-time job she will not have both. that law would solve one hell of a lot of problems not only child poverty.
Now why would women back this law up, because of that statement they keep repeating, the health and safety of our children is paramount! that is why they'll accept that law, To protect the children because the children's welfare is more important than the right of a woman to have a child.
that act alone would reduce the world population slowly in a constructive way. and for any woman to refused to accept that law, she would be saying she doesn't care a crap about the welfare of children. so I would have women over a barrel, they would show their true face, because women do not care about their children, that why there is 4 million children living in poverty in the UK alone which backs me up.
Not only would it reduce the population, it will eradicate child poverty, that means oddly any children going to foster homes and none would be dumped on the street, it will eradicate 90% of all crime, this law would also get rid of congestion, solve the housing problem, our food water energy problems, protect our wildlife and their habitats, and our environment, and our future. because the human population would be stabilised. that means no more increasing in the ageing population, it be stable so you good plan years ahead indefinitely for the elderly people.
I've accomplished all this with a simple law based on what society especially women say about how important the health and safety of their child is to them, it is paramount.
There you have it, I haven't marched people to the concentration camps, I haven't picked up babies on bayonets and thrown them into fires, I have brought a logical solution to a major problem, and I have done it by using the statement from society about how important the health and safety of their children is to them.
Meaning the world population all claim they are intelligent people, then intelligent people will accept an intelligent Law especially one that protects children from physical abuse and poverty, only greedy selfish women will not accept an intelligent law like this, because they think they are more important than the welfare of their children they freely choose to bring into the world, for nobody forces a woman to have children you remember that. specially not in a civilised countries where she is own boss making her own decisions.
Would you accept a law like this to protect children or are you one of the greedy selfish people who believe women have the right to bring children into the world at Any age, Anywhere, Anytime and any number regardless of the suffering they create for them children.
Get back to me Let's see how much you care about the welfare of children would you back these laws up to protect children from unnecessary suffering. or do you think women are more important than the welfare of children and should be allowed to have them when ever they like?
that goes for anybody else that's taken the time to read this. which do you think is more important which should come first the want of a woman or the health and safety of the child.
So you think that only rich people should be allowed to have children? That doesn`t strike you as being a bit extreme?
unrelated to the topic: the host is hot!
R u Indian or....????
lots of luv to your dear silvia, you are soooo beautiful. CNBC International shou;d make every new video with Silvia Amaro
Welcome to Dover! Lol That's a joke right? Welcome to herpes more like....
Is it me or she is so fucking cute
Pay them 1p nothing more; take everything. This is how we interact with bullies
th-cam.com/video/Dokwnx4U1aA/w-d-xo.html
And that’s what you’ve been told ...
Saudi Arabia billionaire make videos
This so-called report was a big waist of time.
The dopey reporter has added NOTHING new to the topic of Brexit.