LONDON — Brussels does legal texts, Britain does speeches.

In the ornate surroundings of London’s Mansion House, with snow keeping her within the capital’s Remainiac square mile, Theresa May gave her third big Brexit intervention designed to give new impetus to the negotiations. First there was Lancaster House, then Florence and now Mansion House.

For all the noise in the run up — from former prime ministers to disgruntled mandarins — May had three key audiences to please: Brexiteers, pro-EU rebels in her own party, and Brussels.

The speech went some way to pushing things on, laying out a series of “hard truths” for each side of the Brexit debate, while offering just enough to keep the Brexit show on the road.

“Life is going to be different,” she told the assembled audience of business leaders, ambassadors and journalists. “In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now.”

May is prepared to soften Brexit any way she can.

Sometimes the biggest admissions are the most obvious. Given U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis’s previous assurances that Britain would enjoy “exactly the same” benefits after Brexit as before, this was one of those. Labour has promised to vote against anything which didn’t meet the Brexit secretary’s commitment.

The central message of the speech was simple enough: May is prepared to soften Brexit any way she can as long as it is consistent with the government’s promise to take “control of our borders, laws and money.”

On the most difficult truth of all, however, — the Irish border — the prime minister did not offer a grand, all-encompassing solution. That is not her style. She repeated the two customs options laid out last summer and announced a new U.K.-EU-Ireland working group had been established to solve the conundrum.

The most important move on the border was actually smuggled into the speech elsewhere. Britain would in future align its standards with the EU on goods, May announced. This was a concession, no doubt. But to make this work for the Irish border the EU must agree to a system of mutual recognition which is far from certain.

Here’s how each key audience heard the prime minister's third big Brexit speech:

Pro-EU rebel Tories

There was much for soft-Brexiteers to cheer.

The hard truths were ones they had been fond of telling for months. “It was much more realistic,” one of the leading pro-EU Tory rebels said. “Much more realistic as to what leaving entails, in particular that there is going to be a significant loss in terms of our ability to sell goods and services into the European market.”

This realism, the Tory MP said, was a sounder basis for negotiation than what has gone before.

May’s pledge for Britain to sign up to “binding commitments” on state aid and competition rules also met with approval from pro-EU rebels seeking to wrestle the closest possible economic relationship with the continent that they can.

“It was what we needed. Realistic, pragmatic, more detailed and setting out some hard facts” — Treasury select committee chair Nicky Morgan

The slightly weaker “strong commitment” to maintaining regulatory standards for goods was a bit of a blow, however, giving them a score draw on commitments with the Brexiteers.

Another big win for the pro-Europeans was the list of EU regulators May called for British associate membership of: the medicines, chemicals and aviation agencies. May’s calculation was clear — nobody voted to leave the EU to take back control of regulating chemicals and medicines.

Rebels also sounded notes of caution.

Leading rebel Anna Soubry said her concern was the proposal remained unrealistic. “The EU has made it very clear the sort of deal it will be doing with us… The Brexit we are heading for is very, very different to the one we were promised.”

Treasury select committee chair Nicky Morgan, another rebel, welcomed the speech, however: “It was what we needed. Realistic, pragmatic, more detailed and setting out some hard facts.”

Michel Barnier and friends

There was no applause in Brussels — not that anyone expected any.

May’s insistence that “every trade agreement is cherry-picking” was received with a mix of annoyance and disdain, while her lack of detail on Ireland generated serious alarm.

But perhaps more than anything else, it was her exhortation of “let’s get on with it,” that left many in the EU capital huffing with indignation. If she wasn't holding things up, who was?

“Theresa May needed to move beyond vague aspirations,” the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt told POLITICO. “We can only hope that serious proposals have been put in the post. While I welcome the call for a deep and special partnership, this cannot be achieved by putting a few extra cherries on the Brexit cake.”

“She shows she hasn’t understood the principles” — EU diplomat

Snarkiness aside, to ears in Brussels, the speech offered little new certainty about Britain’s objectives in the negotiations, and delivered no reassurance that the talks were going to speed up or become more productive.

Instead, officials said May had confirmed the U.K.’s longstanding “red lines” and, in a small step forward, finally stated aloud what many had long expected: She wants a free-trade agreement. And while her demand may be for the best free-trade deal the world has ever seen, at least the framework is certain.

EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, reacted on Twitter with no emotion, saying May’s remarks would be taken into account when the European Council next week tables draft guidelines for negotiating the future relationship.

May, speaking directly to her “friends in Europe,” said: “We understand your principles.” But by demanding a “customs arrangement” that would effectively allow the U.K. to reap many benefits, it didn't sound like it to Brussels.

“No border, no Canada, no Norway, which leaves us where?” one EU diplomat said. “She shows she hasn’t understood the principles.”

In the EU institutions, many officials had their ears perked for concrete details. They were left largely disappointed, especially on the Ireland problem, which May — after promising in December to put forward ideas — seemed to throw back at Brussels to help solve, saying “we can’t do it on our own.”

Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Simon Coveney echoed the call for more detail: "These commitments now need to be translated into concrete proposals on how a hard border can be avoided and the Good Friday Agreement and North-South co-operation protected."

He reiterated that the fallback mechanism of "full alignment" of Northern Ireland with the Republic to the South was still on the table if the U.K. didn't come up with a workable alternative.

Brexiteers

For the Brexiteers, nearly every major speech and announcement since Lancaster House in January 2017 has represented a retreat — and left them hypersensitive to anything that sounds like back-sliding. They also have the numbers to topple her as leader.

May knows this and thus ensured there was a smorgasbord of red Brexit meat for them to pick at.

She reminded her listeners that the U.K. is “preparing for every scenario” — code for the "no deal" outcome the most hardline Brexiteers crave.

"The EU must now consider whether they want to put rigid doctrine ahead of the mutual interests of their people and those of the U.K.” — David Jones, former Brexit minister

Two of her “five tests” for a good Brexit deal — that it must “respect the referendum” and strengthen the Union — were also pitched directly at Brexiteers and her Democratic Unionist Party partners in government.

Less pleasing to Brexiteers would have been the numerous references to close regulatory alignment with the EU.

On goods trade, May said U.K. law should “achieve the same outcomes” as EU law. U.K. and EU standards would “remain substantially similar in the future.” Divergence, setting British laws for the British economy, has been deferred.

But this possibility of future divergence — as well as immediate divergence in a handful areas (May identified digital industries in her speech) — seems to be enough for Brexiteers, for now.

“This was a clear, coherent speech from a prime minister keen to demonstrate that the U.K. will be positive and pragmatic in the forthcoming negotiations,” David Jones, the former Brexit minister, now backbench scrutineer of the government’s policy, told POLITICO. “She challenged the EU to respond in similar terms. The EU must now consider whether they want to put rigid doctrine ahead of the mutual interests of their people and those of the U.K.”

The leader of the backbench Brexit faction, Jacob Rees-Mogg, also kept his powder dry, calling the speech “a clear statement of how we can leave the EU and maintain friendly relations with our neighbors.”

Whether they remain content if the EU pushes back and forces the U.K. to alter its position, remains to be seen.

As for Brexiteers in May’s Cabinet, they were claiming last week that “divergence” had “won the day.” While May’s speech did not entirely bear that out, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who was detained in Hungary because of snow-related disruption, expressed his consent via an airfield photo of him holding the speech, with a grin and a thumbs up.

Alas I have not been able to listen in person as I hoped as I have been delayed by our common European winter weather - on which we will remain in full alignment #RoadtoBrexit pic.twitter.com/X5RoFXpmir — Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) March 2, 2018

“We will remain extremely close to our EU friends and partners — but able to innovate, to set our own agenda, to make our own laws and to do ambitious free trade deals around the world,” he tweeted.

His emphasis on trade was key. One thing Remainers had held out a slim hope of hearing from this speech was a commitment to something like a customs union with the EU. Instead, May fell back on two complex customs proposals set out last summer and largely ignored by the EU.

More than anything Brexiteers will be pleased that the idea of "Global Britain," able to strike trade deals around the world, is still alive.