Mrs May’s generosity was met with a charmless demand for money

The Prime Minister hit the right tone in Florence – and there was some real meat in her proposals

Yes indeed, it was almost entirely about tone and atmospherics. What were you expecting? I lost count of the number of times Theresa May used the word “optimism” in her speech in Florence. The sunlit uplands were spread before us with almost irresistible eloquence. And no, that wasn’t all due to the Great Intervention by Boris Johnson. This speech was, in fact, remarkably true to the spirit of Mrs May’s Lancaster House speech, which was not seen at the time as any sort of power redistribution within the Cabinet but as the official stance of her government. The open-hearted generosity of her offer to be the EU’s best friend forever – providing they do not get too obstreperous – was reiterated. The insistence that the new arrangement must be fair and advantageous to all parties was there – just as we who had been impressed by that earlier oration remembered it.

It seemed like a diplomatic coup at the time and this, being Part II, reaffirmed that impression because it cleverly changed the tenor of the conversation and presented a challenge to the Brussels bullies to match her benevolence. She had to be prompted by a question from the media to reiterate the hard line: that no deal would still be better than a bad deal and, even then, she sounded more regretful than threatening. (She has to stand by this principle, of course, if she is not to put herself in the disastrously disadvantaged position that David Cameron adopted when he tried to negotiate concessions while admitting that he would never advocate leaving.)

The UK was, she even suggested, being helpful to the EU project by stepping aside now. Referring to Jean-Claude Juncker’s projected plan for an uber-European Union with its own army, enforced membership of the eurozone and fiscal consolidation, she said magnanimously that we would not wish to stand in the way of this next phase of their development. Was she being ironic? Maybe. But she kept a straight face.

For all its rhetorical delights, it is wrong to say – as some of her predictable critics immediately did – that this was a non-event, a vacuous exercise in wishful thinking, or just another kick of that proverbial can down the road (or ball into the long grass, whichever you prefer).

What detail she offered was significant and hard-nosed. The two-year transition (now to be called “implementation”) period will be strictly time-limited. It is, in fact, a concession to common sense, rather than to the irreconcilable Remain faction. Money would be paid – enough of it to ensure that no member state would be worse off as an immediate consequence of our leaving. EU citizens who had settled in the UK could expect to go on living here with the same rights as now. Freedom of movement would continue during the transition (sorry, implementation) period, but with a “registration” requirement for incomers.

Most importantly, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice would be reduced to a kind of advisory role: where the UK is now bound by ECJ rulings, our courts would only be obliged in the glorious future to “take them into account”. The mechanism and limits of this judicial arrangement were not spelt out but the spirit of it is unmistakable and she will be held to it. However unspecific the intention of the Leave vote may have been, it is indisputable that it involved taking back control of our laws and our borders. So dismantling the judicial authority of the ECJ is a red line. Yes, there was actual meat in there.

But let’s talk about tone and atmospherics for a moment. This is not a trivial matter. These negotiations, and who is perceived to be succeeding in them, are about two things: abstract argument and hard cash. There can be no doubt that Mrs May is giving ground on the money – although how much is still not clear – but if she wins the battle on high-minded argument, that will go a very long way toward creating the post-Brexit weather.

With her apparent generosity of spirit, and the concrete offers of systematic co-operation on security and intelligence, she was clearly creating a striking contrast with the ill-tempered sniping of EU spokesmen. How would they respond? With yet more mean-spirited scepticism? Or would they be adroit enough to realise that some degree of graciousness was required if they were not to be outplayed?

It was, by my count, nearly three hours before Michel Barnier responded on Friday. His official statement was about as patronising as it could have been under the circumstances. After the briefest bow to her “constructive” overture, he got down to business. Acknowledging with rather pointed relief Mrs May’s statement that no member state “will have to pay more or receive less” as a consequence of Brexit, he adds icily: “We stand ready to discuss the concrete implications of this pledge.” (My emphasis.) In case you missed the point, he continues: “We shall assess … whether this assurance covers all commitments made by the UK.”

In other words, never mind the guff about friendship, just tell us how much you’re putting on the table – and then we will decide whether it’s enough. And, by the way, we’re not talking about any relations – friendly or otherwise – until we get this sorted. Or, in what passes for Brussels diplomatic speak: “The EU will continue to insist on sufficient progress in the key areas … before opening discussions on our future relationship.”

Presumably Team Barnier has given up on any attempt at a charm offensive. But even if he and Mr Juncker have decided that British public opinion is beyond reason, are they aware that other people are watching this performance?

Clearly they are. It is those others they are most worried about: the European populations which have their own reasons for resenting or fearing the power of the EU centralisers. It is these faint-hearts who must be persuaded not to try this at home. See what happens to you when you try to leave? Don’t even think about it. The British must be seen to suffer – and no amount of burbling about friendship can be allowed to get in the way.

In other words, never mind the guff about friendship, just tell us how much you’re putting on the table