This week, the BBC reported that MPs had rejected calls for a blanket ban on social media for under-16s in the UK. Immediately, opposition parties slammed the government, including the Liberal Democrats, seemingly forgetting what the first word in their party’s name actually means.

I’m aware I’m in the minority when it comes to opinions about kids using tech. But, in part, that comes from being immersed in the industry and knowing what tools are available, along with a stark awareness of the slippery slope that we appear to be heading towards with age gating. Also, many people outside of the industry can spot the inconsistencies and issues with legislation too, even if, apparently, many politicians and perennially online adults cannot.

It’s why I recently wrote about why school smartphone bans are a bad idea, ended up on BBC News saying much the same (with my interview being cut to approx. 27 nanoseconds as a counterpoint to a much longer comment by a headteacher, natch) and then grumbled at length about the social media element on Bluesky.

Too many people are again ignoring the evidence around them. Australia has already shown that blanket bans don’t work. In fact, they don’t even exist. The country had a nightmare defining what is and isn’t social media. And for those things that fell into the prior camp, legislation cut off homebound children from their entire social circles.

But still people argue that something must be done. And… on that, at least, I do agree. Platform owners need to do more to surface controls adults can use to help best guide their kids. Social media companies and video platforms need to recognise the harms they can cause. But framing all this through “think of the children” does not help. We need to explore wider harms social media can bring and deal with them, not create a cliff edge at 16 or 18 (the latter being when people can vote), or mark one service as bad and ignore loads of others.

On the latest row, the Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, Munira Wilson, ”accused the government of failing to grasp the issue”. But I’d say that, for once, the government did grasp the issue, in understanding that more thought needs to go into the legislation before it becomes law. Even so, Labour MPs lined up to criticise their own party’s stance. For example, Sadik Al-Hassan said: “Parents like me are locked in a daily battle that they simply cannot win alone, fighting platforms that have been specifically designed to keep children hooked.”

I’m so, so tired of this. When did a generation that grew up with technology all around them decide to abdicate parenting responsibilities to the state? It boggles the mind. But for those of us asking for more nuance, it feels like trying to hold back the tide. To say things are against us is putting it mildly.

It’s easy to see why. Teachers, media and perennially online adults constantly flood the internet and TV with SKY IS FALLING commentary and contrary viewpoints barely get a mention. My own MP (Lib Dem) has taken to posting on Facebook about how awful the Labour Party is for pausing a ban that is deeply flawed.

So, yes, something needs to be done. Social media is causing problems. Kids should be protected. But what we need is more education (for children and adults), a better understanding of available tools, along with extra – and better – regulation. What we don’t need is to start stomping around and banning semi-random chunks of the internet, only to cause more problems than end up getting solved.

Gorton and Denton is a constituency in Greater Manchester. This past week, there was a by-election there after the incumbent Labour MP was suspended and then resigned. Labour – the party currently in government in the UK, and ostensibly a centre-left party – had held the seat and predecessor seats from which it was formed for decades. Nonetheless, the by-election quickly became news, with the suggestion it could be snatched away from Labour by Reform (far-right/authoritarian) or the (English and Welsh) Green Party (economically left/liberal).

A key problem is that the UK media doesn’t approach politics in a boring, sensible manner. It’s more like coverage of reality TV, with the outlets and readers seemingly addicted to spectacle. Because of this, we were subjected to countless breathless takes about the by-election going to the wire, and gleeful excitement about identity politics and the unknowns of what could come next. Some publications were giddy at the prospect of a Reform win.

This is bad, but the media isn’t alone when it comes to blame. Under a modern, representative democratic system, this by-election would have been far more boring. At most, it would have been a coin-flip between two parties with a reasonable degree of policy overlap. Instead, it was a three-way winner-take-all fight between political extremes. Why? Because the UK’s electoral system is archaic.

First past the post (FPTP) is a winner-take-all system. It works in a single seat if there’s an incumbent and a challenger. But beyond that, it quickly becomes problematic. Run 650 single-constituency elections (as happens in the UK during general elections) and the idea is the winner-take-all element will cancel out any imbalance. But when you realise that every battle can be won by someone getting one vote more than their opponent, you quickly spot the flaw. In a battle between two parties, one could win every single seat on a fraction more than 50% of the vote, while the other party gets nothing at all with a fraction under 50%, leaving everyone who voted for them unrepresented.

That, of course, is vanishingly unlikely. But the lack of representation and the random element in the system both increase sharply when more parties enter the mix. And, right now, England is at least a five-party system (Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Reform all over 10%); things are further complicated in Scotland and Wales by way of nationalist parties. (Northern Ireland is very different, with a large number of parties that often ally with those in Great Britain or Ireland, but that aren’t part of the previously mentioned ones.)

When you have three, four or five parties battling in a rigid majoritarian system, things get weird. Just like at last week’s by-election. Many people were predicting that the Reform candidate might come through the middle, due to the split in the progressive vote. But all polling suggested that while perhaps 30% of voters might back Reform, almost double that would vote either Labour or Green – and most of those would not want Reform. Even under other majoritarian voting systems – SV or AV, say – much of the randomness would be gone. These systems allow you to rank candidates in order of preference. Under those, Gorton and Denton would have been all about where second preferences would go and whether the Greens or Labour would win. The story about Reform would have been a footnote, perhaps about a rise in vote share, but not about a potential win, because relatively few voters would put Reform as their second choice.

Note that this is not a partisan point. I am not in favour of electoral reform to keep out the right. In fact, I’d argue many of the problems in the UK over the past decade stem from a voting system that aims to keep the far right out. We’ve been trying to keep a lid on the boiling pot of extremism. But our system is such that there is a tipping point where the lid flies up and hits everyone in the face. And, unless things change in the future, elections could become little more than a dice roll regarding that coming to pass. Reform is currently polling around 30%. Seat calculators suggest that could net the party anything from about 140 seats (21%) to over 400 (62%). The latter becomes even more egregious when you examine research that suggests Reform is the party most voters really don’t want in.

Play nicely

That all said, because we have an electoral system that is winner-take-all and us-vs-them, natural partners often cannot conceive of a future where they could work together. The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, talked of “constructive opposition” after last year’s Labour landslide, given that this iteration of the Lib Dems appeared to overlap quite heavily with Labour across key policy areas. But this offer was largely rebuffed. Similarly, although the Greens and Labour have plenty of overlap, Labour has been actively hostile towards the Greens, branding them extremists.

On that basis, before the by-election, I glumly predicted the following likely responses to different scenarios:

• Labour wins on ~30%: Labour ignores the number and claims the win as validation for basically everything it’s doing.
• Reform wins on ~30%: Labour attacks Green (and probably Lib Dem) voters for not voting Labour. Press goes ballistic and argues Reform will now definitely win the next general election.
• Green wins: Press runs with a ‘Labour is doomed’ narrative and Labour attacks the Greens.

In the event, the Greens did win and I was pretty much on the money. The one thing I got wrong was that the progressive vote was higher than expected, which resulted in the Greens having a greater majority than predicted. The party secured 40.6% of the vote – well clear of Reform (28.7%) in second and Labour (25.4%) in third. Naturally, Reform has since, in Trumpist fashion, claimed the election was rigged. But any basic analysis of voting patterns in the area shows that Reform would have struggled to take the seat with the voters who showed up.

But it could have. And that’s the problem. Not because of Reform’s politics, but because that would have been deeply unrepresentative of the seat. Take that line of thinking nationwide and you have, well, the 2024 general election, in which Labour won 33.7% of the vote, which gave it 63.2% of the seats and, effectively, 100% of the power. Hence why the Labour leadership is perfectly happy with FPTP. Now and again, it gets to rule alone with a smallish vote share, but under a more modern voting system, it would have to share that power. And if a party ideologically opposed to Labour wins? Labour will just blame the electorate for the damage caused, despite Labour itself being in a position to make the voting system more representative and a British politics based around consensus, cooperation, collaboration and compromise. Its calculation: if Reform smashes up the country in 2029, following the Trump playbook, of course everyone will flock back to Labour in 2034. And that’s much more preferable than Labour sharing power with the Greens and Lib Dems from 2029.

There will be people who point out that Labour has in the past instigated electoral reform and brought in more progressive voting systems. For example, it was Labour that changed the UK voting system for MEPs to a form of proportional representation (PR) while the country was a member of the European Union. But those changes tend to align with Labour’s best interests. In short, if it can’t win outright, it brings in voting systems that allow it to improve the chances of it winning multi-round battles or at least retaining a reasonable level of power.

We saw this in Labour reverting mayoral elections to SV after the Conservatives had moved them to FPTP. No one should be under any illusion whatsoever that this wasn’t done to Labour’s benefit. It just so happens that the system also happens to be objectively better and more representative than what it replaced, since more voters will have directly stated that they are in favour of – or at least able to put up with as a second preference – whoever wins. Historically, Labour and the Conservatives had been quite evenly matched under FPTP in the London mayoral election, say. But London is a progressive city and so under SV, second preferences from Green and Lib Dem voters skew Labour.

Notably, there’s an electoral reform bill in progress right now, and yet it ignores the wishes of Labour voters, members, CLPs and affiliated unions, most of which now favour general and local elections switching to PR. But Labour, as always, fixates on the Lords (the upper house/revisioning chamber), despite the Lords mostly working quite well (despite its many problems). Why? Presumably because Labour’s long-term goal in the Lords is also to secure more power, along with eroding opposition by removing crossbenchers. (The latter of which would, in my opinion, be a grave error.) Reform for the Commons? Effectively ignored.

Time for change

Unsurprisingly, the by-election reignited the argument about PR vs majoritarian voting – and especially FPTP. People saw the volatility. They increasingly look at battles where a minority wins and the majority is pushed aside. (And this happens in UK conservative constituencies too, with the vote split between Reform and the Conservatives.)

For all its faults, AV (roundly dismissed in the 2011 referendum, largely because of the Conservatives and media being so hostile towards it) would somewhat fix this issue, in redistributing votes. In short, if a candidate gets over 50%, they win. If not, ranked choices are assigned accordingly until someone hits that target. You end up with a winner over half the electorate at least finds tolerable. It’s a good option for single-seat elections (such as mayoral elections and, yes, by-elections).

Beyond those, though (general and local elections), I’m in favour of shifting towards a system that makes the Commons look closer to the popular vote. Pushback here usually involves people griping about how PR removes the constituency link and involves top-up ‘list’ MPs you can’t ever get rid of. But various PR systems do retain a constituency link (albeit, typically, with larger constituencies) and list MPs can be dealt with through legislation and nuance. (For example, if a list MP dies, it would be reasonable to replace them with the next party candidate on the list, if one exists. Otherwise – or if the MP had to, say, resign in disgrace – you run a by-election under AV.)

That might not sound terribly British to people wedded to FPTP. But the UK already uses PR. The Scottish Parliament uses AMS. The Northern Irish Assembly and Scottish local elections use STV. The Senedd (Welsh Parliament) used AMS but is now switching to D’Hondt (a form of party list system). Historically, even England had multi-member constituencies. And guess what? Those places that use PR tend to end up with governments that require consensus and cooperation, rather than an opposition and government always at odds with every other party, pushing back against any idea or amendment that comes from outside, because that would be considered a defeat.

If you’re on the fence about/against PR, no one who’s in favour is necessarily going to convert you. But if you’ve managed to read this far (thanks to all three of you), do perhaps head over to the Electoral Reform Society and explore its list of voting systems. You’ll learn how they all work and gain an understanding of the balance of proportionality, voter choice and local representation we could have in the UK but that’s so far been denied to so many millions. And, who knows? What you read there might just surprise you.

This post was based on two threads from Bluesky.

In recent weeknotes, I’d mentioned taking a break. That’s because our family for the first time in three years had a proper holiday. It was quite surreal actually leaving the UK once again.

But it was also sobering. This is the first time since Brexit I’d experienced a split queue at passport control. My wife and daughter, both with EEA passports, zoomed through the fast lane, while I waited in the queue specifically labelled for Brits, in a tiny airport. (I’m aware that in some cases, passport control allows families to go through together, but that seems pretty random. I erred on the side of caution.)

To the credit of the Spanish passport officers, they got the Brits through at speed. They were terrifyingly efficient. Even so, there was grumbling in the queue. “Why are we made to queue up?” moaned one person. Another offered: “Brexit. We’re not allowed through the fast queue now.” Rumbles of discontent followed, before one person piped up with: “I think it’s good. At least I get a stamp in my passport now”. Staggeringly, he wasn’t joking. He was proud. Fortunately, he appeared to be in a minority.

I reached the front, felt glum as my passport was stamped, said “gracias” and went to rejoin my family. In the grand scheme of things, this wasn’t important – spending an extra 15 minutes in a queue. Brexit has caused far worse problems. The world has far greater issues. But it was nonetheless a stark reminder of how the most stupid decision a country could possibly collectively make has ramifications that are both big and small.

Theresa May’s written to the 3 million. Again. She’s even finally mentioned the EEA/Swiss nationals living in the UK. A positive step? Perhaps. But I can’t help feeling you should read between the lines…

As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I am proud that more than three million EU citizens have chosen to make your homes and livelihoods here in our country.

Although not enough to unilaterally guarantee your rights over the past year and a half, nor stop my ministers referring to you – and using you – as bargaining chips at various points.

I greatly value the depth of the contributions you make – enriching every part of our economy, our society, our culture and our national life.

But especially the taxes you pay.

I know our country would be poorer if you left and I want you to stay.

And I mean that literally. As in, money.

So from the very beginning of the UK’s negotiations to leave the European Union I have consistently said that protecting your rights – together with the rights of UK nationals living in EU countries – has been my first priority.

Which is why it’s only taken a year and a half to cobble together this deal to protect some of your existing rights.

You made your decision to live here without any expectation that the UK would leave the EU. So I have said that I want you to be able carry on living your lives as before.

Even though the deal that we’ve reached doesn’t actually enable you to carry on living your lives as before.

But I know that on an issue of such significance for you and your families, there has been an underlying anxiety which could only be addressed when the fine details of some very complex and technical issues had been worked through and the foundations for a formal agreement secured.

Or we could have just unilaterally guaranteed your rights, but we had no bargaining chips of our own, so three million of you had to do.

‘When we leave the European Union, you will have your rights written into UK law.’

Which we can change on a whim. Good luck!

So I am delighted that in concluding the first phase of the negotiations that is exactly what we have achieved.

Read the fine print is all I’m saying.

The details are set out in the Joint Report on progress published on Friday by the UK government and the European Commission.

When we leave the European Union, you will have your rights written into UK law. This will be done through the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill which we will bring forward after we have completed negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement itself.

So: no rights for you unless all this goes through. Good job everything doesn’t hinge on a few dozen of my most rabid backbenchers, and the whims of the DUP!

Your rights will then be enforced by UK courts. Where appropriate, our courts will pay due regard to relevant ECJ case law, and we have also agreed that for a period of eight years – where existing case law is not clear – our courts will be able to choose to ask the ECJ for an interpretation prior to reaching their own decision.

We know you wanted lifelong rights here, but we realised we could throw UK citizens in the EU under the bus to get the EU to compromise. Which is a win-win for me.

So as we take back control of our laws,

Oops. My UKIP klaxon just went off. Sorry about that.

you can be confident not only that your rights will be protected in our courts, but that there will be a consistent interpretation of these rights in the UK and in the European Union.

For eight years. Unless we change our minds. Or none of this happens anyway. In which case, your guess is as good as mine.

We have agreed with the European Commission that we will introduce a new settled status scheme under UK law for EU citizens and their family members, covered by the Withdrawal Agreement.

If you already have five years of continuous residence in the UK at the point we leave the EU – on 29 March 2019 – you will be eligible for settled status.

Probably. If you’re not paying taxes, some of my ministers have said we might actually tell you to naff off, but then people who don’t pay taxes aren’t really human anyway, are they?

And if you have been here for less than five years you will be able to stay until you have reached the five year threshold.

Unless you’re not paying taxes, in which case we’re considering reserving the right for Boris Johnson to catapult you across the English Channel using a giant trebuchet.

As a result of the agreement we have reached in the negotiations, with settled status, your close family members will be free to join you here in the UK after we have left the EU.

For a bit.

This includes existing spouses, unmarried partners, children, dependent parents and grandparents, as well as children born or adopted outside of the UK after 29th March 2019.

Ish.

Your healthcare rights, pension and other benefit provisions will remain the same as they are today. This means that those of you who have paid into the UK system – and indeed UK nationals who have paid into the system of an EU Member State – can benefit from what you have put in and continue to benefit from existing co-ordination rules for future contributions.

More or less.

We have also agreed to protect the rights of those who are in a cross-border situation at the point of our withdrawal and entitled to a UK European Health Insurance Card. This includes, for example, tourists for the duration of their stay, students for the duration of their course and UK nationals resident in another EU Member State.

Although you are of course all Citizens of Nowhere, and I’d sooner you never darkened our shores again.

The agreement we have reached includes reciprocal rules to protect existing decisions to recognise professional qualifications – for example for doctors and architects.

Someone told me the other day that all the doctors are leaving.

And it also enables you to be absent from the UK for up to five years without losing your settled status – more than double the period allowed under current EU law.

We really wanted this to be two years, but the EU said “non”. Bally foreigners.

There will be a transparent, smooth and streamlined process to enable you to apply for settled status from the second half of next year.

Because British IT projects are the epitome of streamlined, robust, and reliable.

It will cost no more than applying for a passport.

Sidebar: suggest raising the price of British passports next year to £500.

And if you already have a valid permanent resident document you will be able to have your status converted to settled status free of charge.

Although a valid permanent resident document must be one signed by The Queen, hand delivered by The Queen, and submitted while The Queen stands by your side being Queenlike.

We are also working closely with Switzerland and EEA Member States to ensure their citizens in the UK also benefit from these arrangements.

Someone reminded me last week that these places existed.

I have spent many hours discussing these issues with all of the other 27 EU leaders over the last eighteen months as well as with President Juncker, President Tusk and the EU’s Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier. I am confident that when the European Council meets later this week it will agree to proceed on this basis. And I will do everything I can to ensure that we do.

So right now, you do not have to do anything at all.

Trust us!

You can look forward, safe in the knowledge that there is now a detailed agreement on the table

Although only currently on the table, and not in law.

in which the UK and the EU have set out how we intend to preserve your rights – as well as the rights of UK nationals living in EU countries.

Unless they wanted free movement. But then only Citizens of Nowhere want that.

For we have ensured that these negotiations put people first.

Albeit 18 months late.

That is what I promised to do and that is what I will continue to do at every stage of this process.

Although not to the point of having the Home Office right now stop enforcing CSI in a manner the EU vehemently disagrees with, because that would be too easy.

I wish you and all your families a great Christmas and a very happy New Year.

In limbo.

Theresa May has written to EU citizens. Well, I say written to EU citizens. It’s worth delving into the letter, so you can see precisely the way this government thinks.

As I travel to Brussels today, I know that many people will be looking to us – the leaders of the 28 nations in the European Union – to demonstrate we are putting people first.

As she travels to Brussels today, it’s worth noting she sent this letter to the press first, to get decent PR at home, only later sending it to the people it’s addressed to. As for putting people first, she’s right there if she means Brexiters and/or her government. Not so much EU citizens, whose rights she could have unilaterally guaranteed last year.

I have been clear throughout this process that citizens’ rights are my first priority.

As many commentators have noted, the use of ‘clear’ usually means the opposite.

And I know my fellow leaders have the same objective: to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU.

In the UK’s case, by removing existing rights, and also by refusing to guarantee even the right to reside in the event the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

I want to give reassurance that this issue remains a priority, that we are united on the key principles, and that the focus over the weeks to come will be delivering an agreement that works for people here in the UK, and people in the EU.

Reassurance means nothing. These are empty words. EU citizens have been living in limbo since the referendum. Actually, that’s not entirely accurate: many thousands have already decided to the leave the UK, taking their skills, taxes and families (often including British nationals) with them.

When we started this process, some accused us of treating EU nationals as bargaining chips.

Apart from Liam Fox. Although May is technically accurate here, because he referred to them as cards in a poker hand rather than bargaining chips. Much better!

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

Oops. Actually, almost everything is further from the truth. See above.

EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK have made a huge contribution to our country.

Which May, her cronies, and the British press continue on a daily basis to erode in people’s minds, by positioning EU citizens as simultaneously taking all the jobs that ‘should’ go to British people, and taking all the benefits they can possibly carry in their gnarled and evil EU citizen claws.

And we want them and their families to stay.

Except her government is continuing to push against family reunion rights, and is looking towards ‘equalising’ how migration works regarding the abhorrent income barrier (if you don’t earn over £18,600, bye); also, Amber Rudd helpfully noted that “maybe” those EU citizens who are unemployed won’t be able to stay. So the inference is even the unemployed spouse of an employed person here (British, EU or other) won’t necessarily be able to remain in the UK – despite May saying she wants them to.

The language is important here – as with a lot of Brexit guff, it’s about aspiration, rather than actions.

I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay.

Lawfully.

But this agreement will not only provide certainty about residence, but also healthcare, pensions and other benefits. It will mean that EU citizens who have paid into the UK system – and UK nationals into the system of an EU27 country – can benefit from what they’ve put in. It will enable families who have built their lives together in the EU and UK to stay together. And it will provide guarantees that the rights of those UK nationals currently living in the EU, and EU citizens currently living in the UK will not diverge over time.

An entire paragraph of not awful. Hurrah! Although this all depends on the caveats already mentioned – and those I suspect are about to come. (I’m reading this for the first time now, by the way. Here’s hoping for exciting shock twists and a happy ending. I’m going to be disappointed, aren’t I?)

What that leaves us with is a small number of important points to finalise. That is to be expected at this point in negotiations. We are in touching distance of agreement. I know both sides will consider each other’s proposals for finalising the agreement with an open mind.

Probably accurate, if you mean “will approach the proposals with venom, and throw up roadblocks much like a cat spewing hairballs all over the carpet”. (The EU’s not perfect here either, note. The one actually quite smart thing the UK’s suggested – dropping a two-year maximum absence from the UK to retain settled status, for Brits in the EU to retain free movement within the EU – was spurned.)

And with flexibility and creativity on both sides, I am confident that we can conclude discussions on citizens’ rights in the coming weeks.

Meaning: do what we want, or we will have the press say failure is entirely your fault for being inflexible in not bending to our every whim.

I know there is real anxiety about how the agreement will be implemented.

But don’t care.

People are concerned that the process will be complicated and bureaucratic, and will put up hurdles that are difficult to overcome.

Probably because existing processes are unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic, and put up hurdles that are difficult to overcome.

I want to provide reassurance here too.

Here we go.

We are developing a streamlined digital process

Because those never go wrong in the UK.

for those applying for settled status in the UK in the future. This process will be designed with users in mind,

As opposed to, say, people who aren’t using it.

and we will engage with them every step of the way.

COMPUTER SAYS NO.

We will keep the cost as low as possible – no more than the cost of a UK passport.

An actually good thing. Although I’m hoping this means people applying from scratch; otherwise, it goes against an earlier suggestion that moving from PR to settled status wouldn’t cost anything.

The criteria applied will be simple, transparent and strictly in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement. People applying will not have to account for every trip they have taken in and out of the UK and will no longer have to demonstrate Comprehensive Sickness Insurance as they currently have to under EU rules.

There’s disagreement about CSI, but legal experts on Twitter have told me that either the UK could drop CSI as a block to PR right now, or at least remove the existing requirement. The EU’s long contended anyone with access to the NHS qualifies for CSI. But the UK Home Office disagrees, which means many EU citizens seeking PR (required for citizenship) do not qualify unless they have comprehensive sickness insurance.

The snag: almost no-one knew about this, and the Home Office helpfully doesn’t explain the specifics of what qualifies for CSI. So it’s a lottery of sorts, and an intentional block, to stop people who haven’t been working for the past five years from being able to stay.

The British government could change this right now, but chooses not to. Bear that in mind when you hear May and co. banging on about wanting people to stay. Again, the inference is “we want people to stay who make us money”. Anyone else is considered collateral damage. This kind of thinking isn’t smart, though, because that damage is poor for society as a whole, affecting social webs, carers and the like, and impacting heavily on families.

And importantly, for any EU citizen who holds Permanent Residence under the old scheme, there will be a simple process put in place to swap their current status for UK settled status.

File under: will believe it when I see it.

To keep development of the system on track, the Government is also setting up a User Group that will include representatives of EU citizens in the UK, and digital, technical and legal experts. This group will meet regularly, ensuring the process is transparent and responds properly to users’ needs. And we recognise that British nationals living in the EU27 will be similarly concerned about potential changes to processes after the UK leaves the EU. We have repeatedly flagged these issues during the negotiations. And we are keen to work closely with EU Member States to ensure their processes are equally streamlined.

OK.

We want people to stay and we want families to stay together.

Assuming you earn enough, that everyone’s in work, and that you can jump through enough hoops.

We hugely value the contributions that EU nationals make to the economic, social and cultural fabric of the UK.

Enough to leave them in limbo for a year and a half.

And I know that Member States value equally UK nationals living in their communities. I hope that these reassurances, alongside those made by both the UK and the European Commission last week, will provide further helpful certainty to the four million people who were understandably anxious about what Brexit would mean for their futures.

Nope.

Oh, and a quick PS to Theresa May and her government colleagues: are you even aware that EEA and Swiss nationals are in the UK on the same free movement rules? Given that you never mention them in your hot air letters, I suspect not.