These were hard for the EU to refute outright, since they often did not make any firm policy commitments, but did reveal how far the EU would continue to be unified as time went by and how flexible they might be over their red lines.
In contrast, May has engaged in a slow process of scoping out the possibilities for Britain’s future relationship with the EU, via a series of vague position papers. Trump’s advice to May on Brexit was no doubt to set out her demands from the outset, with clear explanations of the costs to the EU if they did not comply. Strategic theory has long been divided between those who favour the direct approach of open, decisive confrontation such as Donald Trump, and others who prefer more long term, indirect means of achieving one’s goals. The interesting question is: why did May leave it so late? The answer lies in May’s strategic thinking, which can be characterised as following an indirect approach. Britain would at some point have to choose between continuing its regulatory alignment with the EU – with the European Court of Justice continuing to play a role in British legal decisions – or go it alone, free to strike trade deals but with a hard border and tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade with Britain’s largest market. In reality, this confrontation was always inevitable. President Trump has described Britain as being “in somewhat turmoil” and Theresa May’s position is threatened with talk of a leadership contest. The following Monday, David Davis, Britain’s chief negotiator and Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary resigned. On Friday 6 July, two years into the process, the British government finally agreed their negotiating position for Britain’s future trading relationship with the European Union.