'Taking back control' is the great deception perpetuated by Mrs May first as home secretary then as PM.

We could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves.

The directive is voluntary and the UK decided not to enforce it while Mrs May was PM, other member states do.

No amount of parliamentary or media scrutiny has found the reason why there is a complete cover-up.

Sigh. I'm sure you just copied and pasted that. Or better still, read it somewhere, then jumbled up the words, then splurged it out.

Here's the EU Direktiv, comrade:
[Link]

Article 14(4): "an expulsion measure may in no case be adopted against Union citizens or their family members [if they] entered the territory of the host Member State in order to seek employment. In this case, the Union citizens and their family members may not be expelled for as long as the Union citizens can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment and that they have a genuine chance of being engaged"

To paraphrase:
"we're kicking out out now"
"No you're not, I'm look for work"
"We don't think you are"
"Well, I just registered as self-employed - I'm a ... er... taxi driver or something"
"OK, as you were. Here, have some tax credits for that."

Don't believe me? As the Romanian ambassador to the UK:
"It is always a possibility to find a job even if it is under restrictions and that solution is to declare yourself as self-employed and many Romanians did so."
[Link]

Still don't believe me? Read this ECJ judgement:
[Link]
"...it is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged."

This isn't theoretical. This is happening, and it is widescale.

Up until very recently, registering to sell the Big Issue was considered self-employment. That meant full access to tax credits and housing benefits (yes, housing benefits, despite selling a magazine that is meant to be distributed by the homeless). This also prevented "repatriation".

Now, on to the "Six months". Article 14(2):
"In specific cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to whether a Union citizen or his/her family members satisfies the conditions set out in Articles 7, 12 and 13, Member States may verify if these conditions are fulfilled. This verification shall not be carried out systematically."

How do you verify, non-systematically, if an EU citizen is legally allowed to be in the UK? You are not allowed to keep entry/exit records to use to this effect. You basically have to ask them. Oh! You lost your paperwork? No systematic way of recording how long you all have been here? Never mind, we can't arbitrarily "repatriate" you, so you can stay then.

Finally, do you understand what a directive is? Or indeed a regulation? The latter are not even debated in UK Parliament - they are law. Immediately. Don't like what they say? Tough 5hit. It's UK law now. Directives are the same end-result, with the facade of allowing the UK the latitude of at least implementing it in law, to make MPs feel like they had any power in legislating yet another power-grab-and-ratchet from the EU. Again, if we don't like what's in the directive, tough 5hit. Bend over and take it. You want to raise the issue to the Council? Go for it. They'll ignore you (55 times out of 55 objections).

No thanks.
I'd rather we set our own migration law, entirely, here.
I'd rather we did so under initiation of legislation from our own government, not the EU Commission.
I'd rather we have the freedom to amend that legislation, such that no EU instrument binds parliamentary successors (a fundamental rule we have chucked out since Factorame 1990).
I'd rather we treat all economic migrants the same way, regardless of origin, and in a sustainable way that doesn't resort to the lowest common denominator of zero pre-vetting as per the EU.
I'd rather our supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of any disputes.
I'd rather we set our own migration requirements based on demand, rather than be forced to accept supply.
I'd rather our system is not abused by those declaring themselves self-employed the moment they arrive.
I'd rather we have a say on whether we issue a visa for a worker that would bring a large social burden to our shores, in the form of a large number of children or non-working family members. This must include a fiscal analysis to determine if the applicant would be a net recipient of taxpayer funds.

He kicks your arse all over the dancefloor and you come back with this....basically a repeat of the point he just slaughtered. Like you have your hands over your ears.

It's hilarious and enjoyable to read. I'll give you that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Jul 2017 7.26pm)

Along with yourself,dave is one of the posters I enjoy reading..

I'm halfway there...lol,they call it mellow yellow,as Donovan once sang.

Benders. Oh s***. Thats homophobic. I'll be off then...