This letter sets out the ... deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave.

The Dear Donald letter begins warmly, almost lovingly, as the prime minister makes clear she does not want to weaken Europe by leaving it. The use of the word “special” – usually reserved for trips to Washington – suggests she wants to emulate the transatlantic alliance but at more of an arm’s-length distance than before.

We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats … We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

Though the language remains constructive, this is a much more controversial veiled threat. In eliding Britain’s security responsibilities with its desire for economic gain so explicitly, May will be accused of holding a fearful continent to ransom: give us your markets, or we will leave you at the mercy of terrorists and Russians.

We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

There is an unspoken climbdown here. Earlier talk of restricting the residency rights of new EU immigrants as soon as article 50 was invoked has been quietly dropped. By postponing any changes to their legal status until March 2019 at the earliest May has avoided inflaming tensions further.

It is the expectation of the government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

There are not many carrots offered to Scotland in the letter but this is one of them. A reminder that when powers return from Brussels many of them will go to Holyrood as well as Westminster. Whether the opportunity to make fisheries and forestry policy, for example, will compensate for losing the single market is another matter.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement, the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms.

May was careful not to repeat her threat of walking away without a deal in her speech to the House of Commons, but here it is towards the top of the letter. As a negotiating gambit it is perhaps essential to show Britain has other options, but it will raise fears again at home that the government really believes it can walk away with nothing from the talks.

In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.

Just in case the earlier veiled threat was not explicit enough, May rams home the point that Europe needs Britain’s spooks and soldiers. There are echoes of Trump in the hint that the western military and security alliance comes at an economic price; less so the founding principles of Nato.

We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

There were hints of wriggle room here from May on the vexed question on whether the European court of justice has ultimate jurisdiction over free trade within Europe. The Brits seem to be suggesting this can stop at the border. In her speech, May promised to “put an end to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice in Britain”. Perhaps this means it can kick in at Dover and govern international trade, without touching the domestic third rail.

We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU.

Another more emollient sounding message here on the question of the divorce bill, with the threat of haggling over the CD collection still contained within. “We’ll pay something, but not anything,” the Brits seem to be saying. “Don’t get clever with the lawyers; the point is we’re leaving,” is the kicker.

[The] Free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union ... should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries.

May again helps herself to a big slice of cake here with little sign of how she intends to reconcile it with EU priorities. The real haggling over trade is still to come, but the prime minister again insists she can strike one of the deepest free trade deals in history in one of the shortest time frames imaginable, and still have room for cherries and icing on top.

Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

I can help you deal with Donald Trump.

Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the cold war.

… but you also need me to keep Vladimir Putin at bay.

The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent white paper published on 2 February.

I really meant that bit about walking way without a deal.