Thread by @alexandrabulat

A few days ago, I wrote a thread about how the Home Office and their PR team frame the message on the EU Settlement Scheme, to make you, the public, believe it's going much better than it actually is.

Today I'll illustrate the key strategies with the newest 'rebuttal' [THREAD]

The first strategy is to differentiate between you as 'truth' and those pesky EU migrants voicing their concerns in the media as 'myth'. Us vs. Them. Then, you follow with an empty positive soundbite that you don't believe in, but that others may read and say 'aww, that's nice'.

Then, you conveniently frame pre-settled status making it look the same as settled status. If you spoke about 'indefinite leave to remain' and 'limited leave to remain', more people will get it's not the same, but you're a smart marketing team, so you choose the terms carefully.

You always make some reference to 'the law'. The law is the law, right? It, therefore, must be the right approach! You fail to mention the Settlement Scheme is not enshrined in primary legislation, but in secondary legislation that can be changed any time with little scrutiny.

You ignore any genuine concerns from people who did not get the status they deserve. The public won't be able to tell the scale of the problem. Sweep it under the carpet! These applicants had the 'opportunity', so who cares about the reasons it could have gone wrong for them?

Yes, there will be some living in the UK longer than 5 years who won't get the status they deserve. But we don't ask applicants when they arrived in the UK so there's no way to properly check this. We'll use the *estimates* of our choice to avoid the elephant in the room.

If someone is entitled to settled status and gets pre-settled status, logically speaking, that is the system refusing them settled status. But the applicants apply through the 'scheme' so they can get either and we can say that they're not rejected. Smart marketing tip for you.

We'll 'misunderstand' the difference between declaratory and constitutive schemes so we can pretend that the 'digital status' we are giving through our great scheme somehow will protect EU citizens from the hostile environment. It's ok, lawyers are not our target audience.

Finally, we'll have our all-time favorite strategy: pitting @the3million against @BritishInEurope. We were the one promising EU citizens 'automatic grant' of all existing rights (and did not deliver that), but hey, EU states need to match our 'generous offer'.

Don't be fooled by the fluffy PR language. No matter how many times you're told how welcome you are as 'friends, neighbours, colleagues', the reality is that we need to apply to stay and that no scheme in the world reached 100% of its target audience.

A declaratory scheme does not mean you cannot get anymore proof of status. It means that thousands of your 'friends, neighbours and colleagues' won't become unlawful residents overnight if they do not apply on time.
the3million.org.uk/automatic-righ…

A digital status is not necessarily more secure than a physical status. It can also be lost or tampered with. It can lead to more discrimination, and we have already seen landlords and employers illegally checking for EU citizens' settled status.
the3million.org.uk/physical-proof

Settled status is not the same as pre-settled status. The "access to benefits" is NOT the same. There are differences:

This is not about liking or disliking the fact EU citizens have to apply to stay in their homes despite being promised otherwise by politicians like Johnson and Patel. It is about standing against a deliberate strategy to avoid serious issues and misinform the wider public.

I am fed up with big Twitter accounts like the Home Office, UKinEU or several ministers who propagate the line that nothing is wrong with the scheme and that the valid concerns raised by many who did apply are "myths". Stop the propaganda and see the elephant in the room.