On the Sunday before the EU referendum, The Sunday Times published an editorial very much in favour of voting to leave the EU.
Note that I did not use "Brexit"...because the editorial is in favour of voting to leave the EU but only to extract more independence from the EU, not a 100% divorce.
The editorial is concerned with The City of London retaining its power, and on curbing immigration.
The post by Leadsom is entitled Sunday Times Backs Leave | Time for Britain to strike a new deal with Europe (scroll down to 19th June 2016).
...Would a vote to leave mean chaos and disruption as the shroud-wavers claim? We say no. Just as there was no sensible reason for Mr Cameron to rush through those negotiations, there would be no reason now if "leave" wins for the prime minister to invoke the two-year process of decoupling from the EU. If we said "leave" on Thursday and then delayed the implementation of the article 50 withdrawal process we could remain in the single market for years to come while allowing the City of London to keep its access.
That would be an arrangement that suits most MPs of all parties. That would be an arrangement that also suits the German car industry which sells a fifth of its models here and an arrangement that suits its government. We freely acknowledge that the leaders of many large businesses want to "remain" but given the self-interest of all parties in Europe and Britain, we would work to keep our markets open and this paper would hold politicians' feet to the fire to avoid the creep of protectionism.
There is no time constraint impelling us to submit ourselves to Brexit on terms that would be decided in our absence by our European partners. A delay on our side is of fundamental importance, because in previous crises the EU has been willing to negotiate once a member state has shown it will be pushed no further. After Danish voters rejected the Maastricht treaty, Denmark was granted exemptions to keep it in the club. Sweden long ago promised to join the eurozone as a condition of EU membership but has never been forced to do so. Ireland once said no too. At every stage these countries were browbeaten, but in the end Brussels sat down and bartered. The current threats about "the irreversibility" of voting "leave" carry similar weight.
Lots of impossibles become possibles through the process known as "derogation", provided they do not involve overturning any of the EU's core principles. It should therefore be possible to put an emergency brake on immigration — just as all members, minus Britain, Sweden and Ireland, put one on migration from central Europe in 2004. Britain is the EU's most dynamic member and its second largest net contributor. Such a brake should be a small price to keep us on board. It is true that many people support "leave" because they dislike immigration. That is not our view — we warmly welcome migrants' contribution — but we do believe it is time to take stock and address the impact that high migration rates have on our public services and housing. The UK is more liberal on migration than most. Having opened up to migrants from central Europe 12 years ago, we are entitled to an emergency brake now.
...On Thursday, therefore, we should vote "leave". Yes, we must be prepared for difficulties, but we should hold our nerve. This vote may be the best opportunity we shall ever have to call a halt to the onward march of the centralising European project driven by the inherent flaws in the eurozone. That journey is in neither our interest, nor ultimately Europe's. In this referendum campaign we have been rethinking our identity: not as an isolated island nation, but as a global player in partnership with sovereign states on the Continent and beyond. By our example, Britain may even bring Europe to think again about its own destination. We would like our association with the EU to be a looser, more flexible one. This is not a rejection of friends but a plea for real reform. Given a chance, Europe's peoples would agree.
Note "We would like our association with the EU to be a looser, more flexible one. This is not a rejection of friends but a plea for real reform."
In other words, vote leaver to extract concessions on immigration, financial services and employment law.
In case you don't know, The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch who interferes with editorial policy. I'm not saying he wrote that editorial, but I would be surprised if on the eve of the EU referendum he did not demand to approve or otherwise of its publication.
It's a right-wing v left-wing thing, innit?