The Prime Minister is making a (perhaps characteristic/repeated) set of mistakes by projecting her plan to 'fight" EU transition proposals on migration & residency to the top of the news bulletins google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.…
The PM is raising expectations that it is not her policy to meet. UK govt policy is that very little should change during 2019-20 for 2019-20 arrivals. No new controls on work. (You'd have to be a wonk to spot that).
The specific (narrow) issue is terms of residency *post-transition* for transition arrivals. The UK will either concede this (on model of phase 1) or there will be a complex compromise: people can stay but terms & conditions. (This will not match the 'fight' rhetoric).
Choosing *this* issue of citizens to project as a fight (then concede/compromise) on is a bit tone-deaf on the special partnership quest for EU27 allies, Poland, Czech, Spain, Netherlands. This repeats a mistake from phase one.
The polarised tone of the UK debate and the negotiations would be significantly different if May had set out the core aspects of December 2017 citizens deal as a clear UK offer in July-Dec 2016, then negotiated the detail.
The UK govt is doing this now because it feels vulnerable to 'nothing is changing' critique re transition. Instead of overpromising 2019-21, then retreating, they should make public proposals/choices for new post-2021 framework on which there is next to nothing in public yet.
The government is writing to business saying the good news is certainty of no changes in transition & briefing to the media what voters will think is the opposite message - there will be changes in the transition. Business letter here
The proper way to persuade people that there will be changes is to set out some clear post-Brexit ideas & engage the public, not just business, in the same debate. see @Nationalconvers Saying two different things to two audiences will corrode trust on an issue where trust is low
This choice of a (mainly phoney) "fight" will further polarise debate about the @The3Million and @britishineurope at exactly the moment when the govt's aim for people already here is to rebuild trust communicating its 'we want you all to stay' message about settled status.
The Prime Minister wrote this to EU nationals in December gov.uk/government/spe… The current messages to EU nationals, to the EU27, to UK business, and to the party and voters are all over the place & very inconsistent in tone and sometimes on content too.
If I had to guess, think UK will secure *something* on (narrow) post-transition point. Eg if "concede" 2019-20 arrivals get post-2021 status & most get chance to build up to 5 years/settled. But expect UK would eg tighten criminality/public harm criteria for post-2021 settlement
But those negotiated details on the terms & conditions for settlement would be a failure of political and public expectation management from projecting a 'fight', at the cost of unproductive damage to the UK negotiating position and alliance-building strategy
What people care about is using the reset moment of Brexit vote to create a new immigration system. The govt ducks & dives on transition - delaying white paper, delaying bill, half-promising things it won't get on transition - but leaves a vacuum on post-Brexit immigration plans.
The Telegraph has misunderstood how narrow the Prime Minister's point is (on post-transition settlement). So their headline now reports her making a promise that she will break before Easter. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/…
3 weeks later, the UK begins to concede the point (again) on migration during the transition
Govt policy on EU migration during transition is (despite the PM saying otherwise) now back to what Cabinet ministers have been promising business it will be
