On Monday, in plain sight, there was an important U-turn by the UK on the first formal day of the Brexit negotiations. The UK government will not openly admit this, of course. Ministers and their press officials are pretending “nothing has changed”. But something has changed, and it is significant. The U-turn was fundamental.

The reversal is on the issue of “sequencing” — that is, the order in which things will be discussed between the UK and the EU in the negotiations about Brexit. This is an especially critical issue in that there are two agreements in play. First is the exit agreement, which deals with all outstanding issues caused by the departure so as to ensure that it is an orderly process: in effect, the divorce agreement. Second is an agreement on the future relationship between Britain and the EU, particularly the terms of trade.

The inter-relationship between these two agreements is what makes sequencing a major concern for the UK. The EU wants there to be “sufficient” progress on the former — addressing issues of money, citizenship, the Irish border and so on — before there is engagement on the latter. Britain, on the other hand, knows its leverage on the latter is reduced unless the two agreements are negotiated alongside each other. This is why in May, before the general election, the relevant UK minister David Davis said the issue of sequencing would be the “row of the summer“.

But the “row of the summer” did not even get to midsummer’s day. It was instead the row-back of the summer. On Monday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, openly said at a joint press conference with Mr Davis that the UK had accepted the EU’s approach to sequencing. The divorce issues would be discussed first. The EU had got its way.

Some sought to defend the government and praised this as a “compromise”, but there was nothing given to the UK in return. Others described it as a “concession”, but that implies some (limited) choice in the matter. Britain had no choice. This was neither a compromise nor a concession. It was a capitulation.

That the capitulation was coming became obvious on Friday. The BBC journalist Damian Grammaticas tweeted that EU sources were discussing that UK had accepted the EU’s sequencing. Politico Europe then sourced the same claim to two EU diplomats. It was clear that the reversal in Britain’s position was being mentioned almost in passing by EU officials as they prepared for the first formal day of negotiation.

The Department of Exiting the European Union (Dexeu) then issued on Friday what seemed to be a denial. I blogged about this curious and evasive statement on my Jack of Kent blog. The Dexeu statement, though wordy, did not expressly deny the claims of a U-turn. And when the direct question was posed to Dexeu as to whether the BBC journalist’s claims were correct or incorrect there was no further comment.

The significance of the reversal is stark. It shows that the government’s blustering demands may not survive the reality of the negotiation. The merit of the EU’s slow and methodical approach — which this blog has detailed here, here, and here — shows. Preparation has made a difference: it has prevented poor performance.

The U-turn also demonstrates the disparity in clarity and transparency between the two sides. The EU has been unafraid to be open about its approach. Its insistence that the negotiations be phased was set out in its published guidelines. The reasoning for these issues being settled first was also set out (see paragraphs one to 17 of the guidelines) and, to any objective or impartial reader, it is compelling. No sensible person would disagree that these issues are and should be a priority.

The UK government, on the other hand, seems to think it can get away with publishing almost nothing. That it can make do with ministerial boasts and official misdirections. While the EU publishes its “position papers” in each part of the negotiation, it would be unimaginable for Britain to do the same, even if it had settled positions on any of the issues. The government is so used to improvisation and secrecy, it is wrongfooted by the EU’s diligence and candour.

And this goes to the heart of the problem of the negotiations. The UK government, and many in the media, appear to believe that the EU is not being serious about Brexit. That the Union is spinning its positions and will eventually cut a deal on Britain’s terms if the latter shouts loudly enough, in English. That the exit will be determined by the quick politics of the lobby and the briefing, rather than the slow politics of constructive dialogue and open communication.

The EU has a quite different mindset. It sees Brexit as a process, not a jamboree. The key concern for the EU27 and the negotiating team is to establish and maintain unanimity in respect of what needs to be dealt with to prevent a disorderly Brexit. That unanimity of content and purpose has already been achieved, and is now pretty much irreversible. Day one of the negotiations was not step one in the exit process for the EU, more like a step six or seven. It would take something considerable and unexpected now to blow the European negotiators off their tracks. As this blog has described: for the EU, this is Brexit by timetable.

This does not mean, of course, that Britain should just accept what the EU prescribes. But it needs to raise its game and stop underestimating its opponents. The easy option of playing to the domestic media will not work. Britain needs properly to engage and to show how the EU’s interests will be served by outcomes attractive also to the UK.

But the government still seems not to get this. It will not even admit its U-turn on Monday. The current ploy is to hide under the “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” phrase of the EU, but without realising (or acknowledging) that that mantra is for the divorce deal not the trade deal.

Perhaps the U-turn was also necessary for another reason. Just as Edmund Blackadder once said that an election campaign would be fought on “issues, not personalities” because his candidate Baldrick “doesn’t have a personality”, the UK will negotiate Brexit on divorce matters not trade policy, because it currently does not have a post-Brexit trade policy.

In any case, the reversal on sequencing is welcome. Realism has broken through, even if slightly. The question now is how well the UK copes with the EU’s other demands on the various divorce issues. The sequencing issue was ultimately about process more than substance, and substantial defeats will be harder to mask from the press and the public than procedural ones. Britain should use this reversal as an opportunity to reset its negotiation approach. And if if does not do so, and unless something unexpected happens, this may not be the last U-turn by the UK in the Brexit negotiations.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited . All rights reserved. Please don't copy articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.