Two separate negotiations are involved. The main Article 50 one will be about divorce terms, including over money, assets and liabilities, regularising the position of E.U. and British nationals in each other’s countries and the future of E.U. agencies in Britain. This divorce has to be approved by a “qualified majority” of member countries, excluding Britain, and approved by the European Parliament. A second negotiation will be about future trade relations between Britain and the E.U. That deal will take longer, not least because it requires the unanimous approval of all E.U. member countries plus ratification by all national and regional parliaments, as well as by the European Parliament …

Article 50 puts the rest of the E.U. in a stronger bargaining position than Britain, not least because of its two-year deadline. In an effort to shore up her position, Mrs May has insisted that no deal would be better than a bad deal. But other E.U. leaders disagree. If Britain were to leave the E.U. without a deal, it would still face demands for money, and its trade would revert to normal World Trade Organisation terms, which would imply tariffs on exports of cars, car parts, pharmaceuticals, farm products and much else, as well as non-tariff barriers for financial and other services. It is true that the rest of the E.U. would suffer from such a chaotic Brexit, but Britain would suffer more. If she is to secure a mutually beneficial deal, Mrs. May will have to soften her demands more than her fellow E.U. leaders will have to.