By Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist and a towering figure in the construction of the single currency.
telegraph.co.uk/business/201 … b-prophet/
Worth a read.
Whilst the politicians say one thing the money says another:-
Two Labour MP’s, Hilary Benn and Kate Hoey, are to contest the chair of the Exiting the EU Committee.
It will be interesting to see who comes out on top. Result tomorrow.
Stanley Knife:
Two Labour MP’s, Hilary Benn and Kate Hoey, are to contest the chair of the Exiting the EU Committee.
It will be interesting to see who comes out on top. Result tomorrow.
No surprise there it will be remainer Benn.
Hoey would do better by distancing herself from the May and Corbyn remain agenda and setting up a new Nationalist Labour Party to give the Eurosceptic Labour vote something to vote for instead of the cluster zb that UKIP is turning into.
I’m one of those who doesn’t think “speeding up invoking article 50” will help.
I see it a bit like “being insolvent”.
You can either pay a lot of money, and declare yourself bankrupt (which makes you pay out a lot, and takes at least a year assuming you get the 1 year discharge)
You can go into a FIVE year IVA, where you get clobbered if you drop the ball on repayments, are expected to put ALL windfalls into the plan, and they’ll get your house on the table even if it was over unsecured debt originally.
OR you can just “WALK AWAY” and stop paying the money. Let the other side spend THEIR money chasing you, and you keep on winning by refusing to hand anything over, whilst still having full access to your own income and assets.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Let’s make use of that here please.
I’m still crossing my fingers that by the end of March next year - Theresa May will announce that “Brexit is DONE because all our trade routes have since expired, and have been re-assigned to non-EU trading partners. There is and never was any need to invoke article 50 - since we are now 100% out already.”
Winseer you make it sound like its a blind date, simply decided to leave and do nothing. UK has signed numerous treaties and agreements which hold you accountable for your actions, you cant simply walk away without at least formal notification. What kind of trade partner the world will think of you, if you leave the table just by announcing it.
So whats gonna happen if tomorrow EU puts an embargo on UK, just because you decided to say out loud: “we are out” and no need of article 50, fu EU.
Dolph:
Winseer you make it sound like its a blind date, simply decided to leave and do nothing. UK has signed numerous treaties and agreements which hold you accountable for your actions, you cant simply walk away without at least formal notification. What kind of trade partner the world will think of you, if you leave the table just by announcing it.
So whats gonna happen if tomorrow EU puts an embargo on UK, just because you decided to say out loud: “we are out” and no need of article 50, fu EU.
Treaty rule one is “You shall not be able to legally leave without breaking this treaty. Leaving involves promising that you’ll play by EU rules by invoking article 50. Once done, there is a timetable to leaving which allows you to leave legally after x years, where x is any number greater than zero that will never be actually reached if you think about it for a moment”
“Walkaway” means we get back the money we’re paying the EU - straight away.
They are NEVER going to let us “just stop paying it” without a fight.
Being in the EU is like being in debt - NOT “having a blind date” then.
The “waiting” thus far could be just waiting for current trade contracts to come to their natural end. 
Winseer:
I’m one of those who doesn’t think “speeding up invoking article 50” will help.I see it a bit like “being insolvent”.
You can either pay a lot of money, and declare yourself bankrupt (which makes you pay out a lot, and takes at least a year assuming you get the 1 year discharge)
You can go into a FIVE year IVA, where you get clobbered if you drop the ball on repayments, are expected to put ALL windfalls into the plan, and they’ll get your house on the table even if it was over unsecured debt originally.OR you can just “WALK AWAY” and stop paying the money. Let the other side spend THEIR money chasing you, and you keep on winning by refusing to hand anything over, whilst still having full access to your own income and assets.
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Let’s make use of that here please.
I’m still crossing my fingers that by the end of March next year - Theresa May will announce that “Brexit is DONE because all our trade routes have since expired, and have been re-assigned to non-EU trading partners. There is and never was any need to invoke article 50 - since we are now 100% out already.”
Define ‘expired’ trade routes.We either trade,which,other than tariff,type approval,or quota barriers,has nothing to do with the government,or we don’t,there are no defined time limits on trade.If May was up for ignoring article 50 that’s exactly what she’d say and get on with it now not a statement about invoking article 50 at some obscure point in the future that no surprise seems to get pushed ever further down the line.On that note those of us who are telling her to get on with it mean get on with getting us out now.If that means ignoring article 50,on the basis that it is really a document that denies secession,then so be it as the preferable option.But all this bollox about so called trade routes that don’t exist now but that will exist in the future is just a remain tactic being used to delay BREXIT long enough for them to derail it.
IE,except for EU rules,there’s nothing stopping anyone trading with anyone anywhere in the world now.Get rid of the EU then those rules no longer exist.Which in truck terms obviously means an open door to import trucks from Australia as well as the EU.With the difference that we could well end up in a situation of getting a much bigger share of the manufacturing process in the case of the former.While there’s also no need to shut down our trade with the latter unless ‘they’ want to kick off a trade war with ‘us’ out of vindictive spite because Federations don’t do secession.
Dolph:
Winseer you make it sound like its a blind date, simply decided to leave and do nothing. UK has signed numerous treaties and agreements which hold you accountable for your actions, you cant simply walk away without at least formal notification. What kind of trade partner the world will think of you, if you leave the table just by announcing it.
So whats gonna happen if tomorrow EU puts an embargo on UK, just because you decided to say out loud: “we are out” and no need of article 50, fu EU.
The fact is the EU isn’t a trading relationship.It’s first and foremost a Federation that uses trade as blackmail to remove national sovereignty.We voted to join it in 1975 on the false premise put to the electorate that we weren’t trading sovereignty for trade.That’s since been shown to be false in which case all of the treaties signed by our government since were an illegal act.Especially the conditions within article 50 which is effectively a document which denies secession.You say you don’t want us in the club on the basis of what we actually signed up for in 1975 and we don’t want to be in it on the basis of your terms of sovereignty for trade.So yes fu EU we’re out in which case why are you so keen on making us stay bearing in mind you only want members which are totally on message with the EU Federal aims.
Example of “expired” trade route - Tesco being supplied from Unilever, an anglo-dutch outfit.
We’re told they’ve come to another agreement after Tesco refused to pay ramped-up prices blamed upon Brexit and the ensuing fall of Sterling.
We’re not told the fine detail of this “deal” though - because trade is the business of those trading partners - and not government.
If an agreement had NOT been reached - thus the trade route between Unilever and Tescos would have “expired” forcing Tescos to go elsewhere for products, which might not even be possible in the case of “unique” products entirely monopolized by Unilever. I think it was suggested that Marmite was one such product, but in actual fact it would be possible to source marmite by numerous third parties who happen to have it in stock, being an Ambient warehouse product after all.
AS time goes on - more and more anglo-EU firms are going to “try it on” by attempting to push price hikes through to British buyers of their wares.
Each and every time then - an opportunity exists for buyers to say “No, we can’t afford it” or “No, we’re NOT going to pay even though we can afford it”.
There might be this scare story going on that “we’re going to get runaway inflation in Britain” - but it’s not going to happen, simply because there would have to be dozens of international businesses and banks going under before this point is reached. Interest rates being kept low - kicks this eventuality further into the future. Despite the economy showing signs of “picking up” - rates are still being kept rock-bottom, and indeed have been lowered again since Brexit.
It’s even possible that rather than “runaway prices” affecting our economy negatively - the “debt meltdown” is likely to happen first.
Lehman Brothers failed during the credit crunch because they were making a market in debts that would never be repaid - subprime mortgages in that case. Eventually all the “bad debt” migrated onto their books which they’d paid over the odds for (paid anything at all for really!) and they went down, not to be rescued by the wider banking system, because that would have dragged THEM into the quagmire as well. The other banks cut Lehmans loose.
At some point in the near future I predict - credit card issuers are going to find that they cannot get repaid on their loans, because those who’ve defaulted them no longer own houses to be confiscated nor jobs with progressive pay to afford the higher repayments needed to clear such debts.
There’s nothing on Earth that can make a person with no money or assets “pay” when the music stops, and people’s credit is 100% denied. Who’s going to really pay to “Improve their credit rating” which is the huge piece of public swindle being hoisted upon consumers since the invention of counterfeiting?
For the time being though - there are plenty doing just that - paying installments on debts they cannot possibly ever repay, because the payments are smaller than the running-up charges.
Lower interest rates has not really brought any positive impact from such “lower and lower repayment amounts”.
What would be interesting too in the next few days - is the announcement from global solvent banks - that they will NOT be brought over by government guarantees, and the like - and thus do NOT need to join the ever-more regulated structure of banks that has UK banks paying “fines” to America for breaking their rules. FFS can’t anyone see that America are basically robbing the British Taxpayer! 
Winseer:
Example of “expired” trade route - Tesco being supplied from Unilever, an anglo-dutch outfit.
We’re told they’ve come to another agreement after Tesco refused to pay ramped-up prices blamed upon Brexit and the ensuing fall of Sterling.We’re not told the fine detail of this “deal” though - because trade is the business of those trading partners - and not government.
If an agreement had NOT been reached - thus the trade route between Unilever and Tescos would have “expired” forcing Tescos to go elsewhere for products, which might not even be possible in the case of “unique” products entirely monopolized by Unilever. I think it was suggested that Marmite was one such product, but in actual fact it would be possible to source marmite by numerous third parties who happen to have it in stock, being an Ambient warehouse product after all.AS time goes on - more and more anglo-EU firms are going to “try it on” by attempting to push price hikes through to British buyers of their wares.
Each and every time then - an opportunity exists for buyers to say “No, we can’t afford it” or “No, we’re NOT going to pay even though we can afford it”.There might be this scare story going on that “we’re going to get runaway inflation in Britain” - but it’s not going to happen, simply because there would have to be dozens of international businesses and banks going under before this point is reached. Interest rates being kept low - kicks this eventuality further into the future. Despite the economy showing signs of “picking up” - rates are still being kept rock-bottom, and indeed have been lowered again since Brexit.
It’s even possible that rather than “runaway prices” affecting our economy negatively - the “debt meltdown” is likely to happen first.
Lehman Brothers failed during the credit crunch because they were making a market in debts that would never be repaid - subprime mortgages in that case. Eventually all the “bad debt” migrated onto their books which they’d paid over the odds for (paid anything at all for really!) and they went down, not to be rescued by the wider banking system, because that would have dragged THEM into the quagmire as well. The other banks cut Lehmans loose.At some point in the near future I predict - credit card issuers are going to find that they cannot get repaid on their loans, because those who’ve defaulted them no longer own houses to be confiscated nor jobs with progressive pay to afford the higher repayments needed to clear such debts.
There’s nothing on Earth that can make a person with no money or assets “pay” when the music stops, and people’s credit is 100% denied. Who’s going to really pay to “Improve their credit rating” which is the huge piece of public swindle being hoisted upon consumers since the invention of counterfeiting?
For the time being though - there are plenty doing just that - paying installments on debts they cannot possibly ever repay, because the payments are smaller than the running-up charges.
Lower interest rates has not really brought any positive impact from such “lower and lower repayment amounts”.What would be interesting too in the next few days - is the announcement from global solvent banks - that they will NOT be brought over by government guarantees, and the like - and thus do NOT need to join the ever-more regulated structure of banks that has UK banks paying “fines” to America for breaking their rules. FFS can’t anyone see that America are basically robbing the British Taxpayer!
Bearing in mind the level of obvious debt that we’ve taken on to service an unsustainable trade deficit,in large part with the EU and the unrealistic value of the pound relative to our gutted industrial base,it’s more a case of it being when not if we see a massive correction which shows the true level of the pound.Ironically we’ve got more chance of fixing that out of the EU than in.IE staying in means more borrowed money to pay for German jobs and US strategic aims in Eastern Europe.
What we’re seeing now is a remain agenda that’s bribing us with our own debts on the basis of if we leave they’ll stop hiding the economic zb storm,that we’re actually in,from us.If we remain they’ll just keep the status quo going of us taking on ever more debt to pay for more German exports around Europe.While hiding it under the cover of a bs understated inflation figure and over valued pound.Until the next time the population argues with it’s EU masters when they’ll roll out the same economic blackmail again.Hopefully the electorate will be bright enough to say do what you like but we’re out and we ain’t going back regardless of Frankfurt’s and US economic threats which are all about both EU and US abhorrence of the secession word.
Stanley Knife:
266 new import tariffs since referendum
Why is the full spiel here “Not in the public domain”?
We are supposed to be halting payments to the EU already - and yet paying surcharges ALREADY?
“When you can’t do something legally because it hurts too much - you have a war, and stick some new rules on the table among the terms of surrender - even if it’s you surrendering.”
Germany and Japan did alright after the war, thanks to forward-thinking economists like Maynard Keynes.
We could do with a proper economic genius to get Brexit done for us - rather than some safe-seat morons who think “Bretton Woods” is ‘a forest in the west of France’. 
Winseer:
Example of “expired” trade route - Tesco being supplied from Unilever, an anglo-dutch outfit.
We’re told they’ve come to another agreement after Tesco refused to pay ramped-up prices blamed upon Brexit and the ensuing fall of Sterling.We’re not told the fine detail of this “deal” though - because trade is the business of those trading partners - and not government.
If an agreement had NOT been reached - thus the trade route between Unilever and Tescos would have “expired” forcing Tescos to go elsewhere for products, which might not even be possible in the case of “unique” products entirely monopolized by Unilever. I think it was suggested that Marmite was one such product, but in actual fact it would be possible to source marmite by numerous third parties who happen to have it in stock, being an Ambient warehouse product after all.AS time goes on - more and more anglo-EU firms are going to “try it on” by attempting to push price hikes through to British buyers of their wares.
Each and every time then - an opportunity exists for buyers to say “No, we can’t afford it” or “No, we’re NOT going to pay even though we can afford it”.There might be this scare story going on that “we’re going to get runaway inflation in Britain” - but it’s not going to happen, simply because there would have to be dozens of international businesses and banks going under before this point is reached. Interest rates being kept low - kicks this eventuality further into the future. Despite the economy showing signs of “picking up” - rates are still being kept rock-bottom, and indeed have been lowered again since Brexit.
It’s even possible that rather than “runaway prices” affecting our economy negatively - the “debt meltdown” is likely to happen first.
Lehman Brothers failed during the credit crunch because they were making a market in debts that would never be repaid - subprime mortgages in that case. Eventually all the “bad debt” migrated onto their books which they’d paid over the odds for (paid anything at all for really!) and they went down, not to be rescued by the wider banking system, because that would have dragged THEM into the quagmire as well. The other banks cut Lehmans loose.At some point in the near future I predict - credit card issuers are going to find that they cannot get repaid on their loans, because those who’ve defaulted them no longer own houses to be confiscated nor jobs with progressive pay to afford the higher repayments needed to clear such debts.
There’s nothing on Earth that can make a person with no money or assets “pay” when the music stops, and people’s credit is 100% denied. Who’s going to really pay to “Improve their credit rating” which is the huge piece of public swindle being hoisted upon consumers since the invention of counterfeiting?
For the time being though - there are plenty doing just that - paying installments on debts they cannot possibly ever repay, because the payments are smaller than the running-up charges.
Lower interest rates has not really brought any positive impact from such “lower and lower repayment amounts”.What would be interesting too in the next few days - is the announcement from global solvent banks - that they will NOT be brought over by government guarantees, and the like - and thus do NOT need to join the ever-more regulated structure of banks that has UK banks paying “fines” to America for breaking their rules. FFS can’t anyone see that America are basically robbing the British Taxpayer!
Completely clueless of how the real world works.
Well they have debated those invoke article 50 now & European Communities Act immediately on EU Referendum OUT vote. petitions Parliamentlive.tv - Westminster Hall
Why is it a forgone conclusion that once they do invoke article 50 that it will take the full 2 yrs, i smell bs, this is a tory stitch up
On another note i see that they are allowing several adult male children from calais, and won’t test them to see what their real ages are
Del Trotter - You sound like one of those momentum infiltrators that are proliferating on message boards around the internet.
I don’t profess to be an expert upon anything in particular, but at least accept that if you don’t agree with what I say - I’m still entitled to say it.
There’s no need for a “personal attack” - give your own argument against instead!
You don’t see Me and Carryfast slagging each other off do you? We rarely agree on stuff, and yet write volumes on this board between us…
“Visionaries” are traditionally never recognized in their own lifetimes, so I’ll take some comfort for that. They’ll be no reward for me for being right about any of the stuff I say as “Prophecy” in any case.
“The Curse of Cassandra” that used to be called.
The world works in a particular way, until that way is proven to be “not working” or at least “out of date”, at which point it breaks, and society is left to pick up the pieces, and bring in a new system.
If we fail to do this, natural selection will take over, and with natural selection - the strongest side wins rather than the most worthy side.
Bretton Woods recognized that “If you treat another nation badly enough, especially in defeat - a stronger, more opposed nation will pop up in it’s place.”
The Marshall Plan prevented “another Hitler” appearing in both Germany and Japan - so far. No one bothered looking at Turkey alas, after the disaster of partition which saw the assassination of none other than Boris Johnson’s ancestor by a rebel general. Germany also falters at this time, with it’s resurgence of Neo-■■■■ types. If America loses it’s "special relationship with Japan (or Britain come to that - last their enemy 200 years ago!) then watch out world… WWIII need not start “traditionally” in the middle east as so many seem to expect.
The first step in avoiding a war, and obtaining the victory of lasting peace - is to recognize that “there is a danger of war coming”.
Winseer:
Del Trotter - You sound like one of those momentum infiltrators that are proliferating on message boards around the internet.I don’t profess to be an expert upon anything in particular, but at least accept that if you don’t agree with what I say - I’m still entitled to say it.
There’s no need for a “personal attack” - give your own argument against instead!
You don’t see Me and Carryfast slagging each other off do you? We rarely agree on stuff, and yet write volumes on this board between us…“Visionaries” are traditionally never recognized in their own lifetimes, so I’ll take some comfort for that. They’ll be no reward for me for being right about any of the stuff I say as “Prophecy” in any case.
“The Curse of Cassandra” that used to be called.The world works in a particular way, until that way is proven to be “not working” or at least “out of date”, at which point it breaks, and society is left to pick up the pieces, and bring in a new system.
If we fail to do this, natural selection will take over, and with natural selection - the strongest side wins rather than the most worthy side.Bretton Woods recognized that “If you treat another nation badly enough, especially in defeat - a stronger, more opposed nation will pop up in it’s place.”
The Marshall Plan prevented “another Hitler” appearing in both Germany and Japan - so far. No one bothered looking at Turkey alas, after the disaster of partition which saw the assassination of none other than Boris Johnson’s ancestor by a rebel general.The first step in avoiding a war, and obtaining the victory of lasting peace - is to recognize that “there is a danger of war coming”.
The level of intelligence contained within Del Trotter’s comments seem to be as expected of any Federalist not just Momentum but also Europhile Cons or Lib Dems.IE they won’t by nature accept dissent or opposition to their fixed blinkered dictatorial path.
As for the potential war situation that’s always going to be there so long as you’ve got the argument for secession against Federation.Which as I said has its precedents in the direct cause of WW1 ( Serbian self determination ), American war of secession,breakup of the former Yugoslavia,and ironically the Irish struggle for independence.The latter of those unbelievably having sold out their hard won sovereignty for EU kick backs.But definitely not the precedent of WW2 or the cold war which followed it which was a war in defence of the idea of the nation state by nation states.
As for the US yes that could be seen as an enemy of our secession from the EU just as it’s still an enemy of the right to self determination of the states at home.‘If’ push ever came to shove in that regard you can bet that we’d be facing a united Federalist ‘army’ of our own EU loyalists like Del Trotter allied to US and EU ones.However that’s only a potential scenario way into the future for furure generations ‘if’ we fail to get Brexit sorted now.Which is ironic bearing in mind that the US helped us in WW2 and the Cold War to defend the idea of sovereign nation states against the idea of centralised Federal rule in whatever form.
Australia has just dealt a massive blow to the UK government’s Brexit plans
msn.com/en-gb/money/news/aus … ailsignout
Listen carefully to the video inserted in that article
internetfan:
Australia has just dealt a massive blow to the UK government’s Brexit plansmsn.com/en-gb/money/news/aus … ailsignout
Listen carefully to the video inserted in that article
More desperate remain bs.Meanwhile the reality as it stands now.Australia is already a net importer of UK products with us already having a trade surplus there unlike with the EU.In which case why would that change just because we are no longer an EU member as opposed to it growing. 
gov.uk/government/publicatio … t-overview
austrade.gov.au/Australian/E … et-profile
The main obstacles being EU barriers ‘against’ Australian imports to us not Australian barriers against UK exports to Australia.In which case Australia has everything to gain from Brexit with most barriers applying being on our side not their’s and therefore up to us to remove.In which case removal of EU type approval and duty barriers against Australian vehicle imports would be just one obvious example of a trade deal which could take hours to sort not years.
What the issue does show is that we need to leave fast and forget about article 50.
Exclusive: leaked recording shows what Theresa May really thinks about Brexit
Secret audio of Goldman Sachs talk in May shows she feared businesses would leave and wanted the UK to take a lead in Europe
heresa May’s private Brexit warning speech to Goldman Sachs – audio
Theresa May privately warned that companies would leave the UK if the country voted for Brexit during a secret audience with investment bankers a month before the EU referendum.
A recording of her remarks to Goldman Sachs, leaked to the Guardian, reveals she had numerous concerns about Britain leaving the EU. It contrasts with her nuanced public speeches, which dismayed remain campaigners before the vote in June.
Speaking at the bank in London on 26 May, the then home secretary appeared to go further than her public remarks to explain more clearly the economic benefits of staying in the EU. She told staff it was time the UK took a lead in Europe, and that she hoped voters would look to the future rather than the past.
In an hour-long session before the City bankers, she also worried about the effect of Brexit on the British economy.
“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.
“If we were not in Europe, I think there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say, do they need to develop a mainland Europe presence rather than a UK presence? So I think there are definite benefits for us in economic terms.”
Her warning about the importance of the UK’s membership of the EU comes in marked contrast to her positioning in recent weeks.
May said at the Conservative party conference that she wanted to prioritise reducing immigration over being part of the single market. In her speech, she said British companies needed the “maximum freedom to trade and operate in the single market” but not at the expense of “giving up control of immigration again” or accepting the jurisdiction of judges in Luxembourg.
Brexit: Theresa May prioritises immigration curbs over single market
At Goldman Sachs, May also said she was convinced Britain’s security was best served by remaining in Europe because of tools such as the European arrest warrant and the information-sharing between the police and intelligence agencies.
“There are definitely things we can do as members of the European Union that I think keep us more safe,” she said.
The disclosures could prove embarrassing for the prime minister, who faced criticism for lying low during the referendum campaign and offering only luke-warm support for the remain side.
In April, May gave a speech in which she set out some of the reasons for staying in the EU, warning that it could have an impact on the development of the single market for the rest of the EU if the UK left. But her comments at the Goldman Sachs event a month later go further in warning about the dangers to the British economy from businesses relocating to continental Europe.
During the referendum campaign, May infuriated senior Conservative colleagues on the remain side by largely staying out of the day-to-day arguments in favour of staying in the EU. One of her major pro-remain interventions was overshadowed by an announcement that she would like to take the UK out of the European convention on human rights, which she quickly ditched when running for the party leadership.
Her refusal to participate much in the campaign led Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s former chief of communications, to wonder if she was secretly an “enemy agent” for the other side. However, others have suggested she believed in the arguments for staying in but was keeping her powder dry in case of a pro-Brexit vote.
May went to Goldman Sachs as a guest speaker and answered questions from the floor. In relaxed exchanges, she praised Cameron, the then prime minister, and said he had returned with important concessions from his EU summit earlier in the year.
She sidestepped a question about whether she wanted to be prime minister and focused on explaining why Britain should stay in the EU. May said: “That is one of my messages in terms of the issue of the referendum, actually we shouldn’t be
voting to try to recreate the past, we should be voting for what is right for the future.”
Goldman Sachs confirmed May had spoken to staff but was not paid. She accepted an invitation as part of the bank’s Talks@GS programme, in which high achievers from all walks of like are given a chance to reflect on their experiences and answer questions.
Previous speakers in the series include double Olympic champion Dame Kelly Holmes, David Benioff, the co-creator of the Game of Thrones TV series, and Loyd Grossman, the man behind the eponymous sauces. Some of the speakers are listed online, although May is not.
In the US, the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, made three private speeches to Goldman Sachs staff in 2013, the contents of which she originally refused to divulge during a bitter primary contest with leftwing rival Bernie Sanders. She was paid $675,000 (£554,000), and transcripts eventually released by WikiLeaks show her taking a much softer line on Wall Street than she had publicly claimed.
Introduced in her private session at the bank as the “longest-serving home secretary this century”, May spoke in much more explicit terms than ever before about the need for the UK to act from the front in Europe.
“What I do think is that the UK needs to lead in Europe,” she said. “I think over the years the UK has tended to take a view that Europe is something that is done to us, we have taken a rather backseat position to Europe, I think that when we go out there, when we can take the initiative and when we lead, we can achieve things. So I do think we need to make sure we are taking the lead.”
Analysis Theresa May’s awkward EU meeting sees little progress on Brexit
Prime minister received warmer welcome in bilateral meetings, but there may be tougher messages to come
Read more
She dismissed concerns of senior figures in the military who had claimed that the EU “was making life more difficult for soldiers”.
“Actually very often when people talk about it I suspect, and I haven’t spoken to them, I suspect that they are not talking about the European Union, but the European convention on human rights and the European court of human rights, which is separate from the European Union.”
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, said it was “disappointing that Theresa May lacked the political courage to warn the public as she did a bunch of bankers in private about the devastating economic effects of Brexit”.
He added: “More disappointing is that now she is supposedly in charge, she is blithely ignoring her own warnings and is prepared to inflict an act of monumental self-harm on the UK economy by pulling Britain out of the single market.”
Phil Wilson, a Labour MP speaking for the Open Britain group campaigning for the UK to stay in the single market, said: “It’s good to know that privately Theresa May thinks what many of us have been saying publicly for a long time – leaving the single market would be bad for businesses and for our economy.
“Now she is prime minister, Theresa May is in an unrivalled position to act on her previous concerns – starting by putting membership of the single market at the heart of her government’s negotiating position.”
Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP and former shadow business secretary, said May was “right then – and it underlines why single market membership should be her ambition now”.
A No 10 spokesman said: “Britain made a clear choice to vote to leave the EU and this government is determined to make a success of the fresh opportunities it presents.
“David Davis made very clear in the House of Commons last week the importance the government places on financial services across the UK in the negotiation to come, as has the chancellor in recent weeks.
“We want a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union, which would be in the interests of both Britain and the EU.”