The Observer view on Theresa May’s Florence speech |Observer editorial

Last Friday, the prime minister stepped into a church filled with stunning frescoes in a city regarded by many as the cultural capital of Europe. But, it was to prove, only to deliver a speech to a roomful of British journalists, in front of a bland backdrop that would have been at home in an anonymous conference room in any corner of Britain. It is a fitting metaphor for a speech trailed as a highly significant intervention to reset Britain’s Brexit negotiating position, but whose laboured and literal attempt to invoke the spirit of creativity in the birthplace of the Renaissance could not hope to compensate for a lack of vision.

It is true the speech represented the most marginal of improvements in Britain’s position, albeit from a low base. Theresa May was explicit that Britain will seek a continuation of the status quo during a transition period: Britain will remain a member of the single market and customs union and it will continue to be subject to freedom of movement of people and to fall within the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.

This was always inevitable and should have been her position a year ago. It is at last a tacit acknowledgment that leaving the EU will not be the walk in the park that the Leave campaign dishonestly implied.

The tone of the speech was far more conciliatory than the one May gave at Lancaster House earlier this year. She refrained from explicitly saying that no deal would be better than a bad deal, dropped the incendiary suggestion that Britain might use security co-operation as a bargaining chip in the negotiations and gave reassurances that Britain would not be looking to undercut the EU by going for a Singapore-style deregulatory model, should it not play along with Britain’s demands. But the fact that May’s tone is worthy of note only tells us how deficient the government’s approach to these negotiations has been up to this point. The petulance and implausible threats have wasted not only time – in a process in which there is very little – but precious goodwill from our European partners.

Beyond this, the speech made no progress whatsoever in outlining a vision for a final deal, despite the fact there is barely a year left to get one negotiated before it goes through the ratification process.

May implored Europe to show creativity in agreeing a bespoke arrangement. But at heart, she is continuing to ask for the advantages of Norway-style EEA membership – economic access – while retaining the freedoms and flexibilities of a Canadian-style free-trade agreement.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, has been unfailingly clear that there is a trade-off between sovereignty and access that Britain must confront. The more unfettered access Britain wants after it leaves, the more it must be a rule-taker; the more control it wants over its own borders, the greater an economic hit it must take. Rather than confront this trade-off, May simply continued to plead for Britain to have its cake and eat it.

The immediate question following the speech is whether it went far enough on the three key questions on which the EU wants progress made before moving on to talk about the shape of a final deal.

May made conciliatory noises both on the UK’s outstanding financial contributions, and on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, though there remains much complex detail to be worked through.

But the most worrying passage of the speech was on Ireland. May went no further than she has already, simply saying the government will not tolerate a hard border in Ireland, without giving any indication as to how this conundrum will be resolved.

The fact remains that the lack of border checks so integral to the Good Friday agreement is predicated on the single market and customs union. Unravelling Britain’s participation in those institutions cannot but put peace at risk. And, to its utter shame, the government has not yet provided any concrete indication of how this might be avoided.

Barnier’s initial response suggests that the UK will need to provide more detail to meet the “sufficient progress” test. Yet as long as the government remains unprepared to move from a world of wishful fantasy to the trade-offs of reality, this is in many ways a moot question.

We will see no real progress while May continues to wield Britain’s negotiating position on the most important question facing the country as a tool for managing the internal struggles of the Tory party. Her speech was not primarily designed to move on the negotiations in order to get the best outcome for Britain. It was to confect a fragile fudge to hold together her own party. To Europe, it is painfully apparent that the prime minister, hostage to the civil war taking place in the Conservative party, has no authority to negotiate a final deal.

It would be deeply misguided to see the Florence speech as a benign intervention that simply kicks the difficult decisions two years down the road. In pretending to the British public that there is no trade-off – that Britain can continue to have it all – May is a worthy heir of the Leave campaign.

She is playing with fire, creating the risk of huge popular backlash when it transpires that we can’t. Yes, a shift in public opinion during a long transition could create a mandate for the softest of Brexits, which would be by far the best option if Britain has to leave the EU. But how on earth will that shift transpire while our prime minister continues to pretend Britain need not make difficult choices?

Barnier also invoked the spirit of the Renaissance last week, albeit more subtly, when he quoted one of Florence’s most famous sons, Niccolò Machiavelli: “Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great.” But all of our prime minister’s willingness seems to be focused not on securing the country’s economic wellbeing, nor maintaining peace in Northern Ireland but on holding together a Conservative party on the brink of tearing itself apart. In continuing to put party before country, she does Britain untold harm.