The Tory Leadership campaign
Now the Conservative MP’s have decided on their two preferred candidates for the leadership of the Party, the choice between the two rests with a postal ballot of members of the Party. While the tragic events in Dallas take up a lot of space the two candidates do get some coverage: See the BBC’s Review of the Papers.
The Sun comes out for May: “As Britain faces economic instability, it is vital the nation realises Theresa May is the best bet for No 10 — and fast”.
As befits the paper generally referred to as “The Torygraph”, the Telegraph has (i) Exclusive: Theresa May: Britain faces ‘tough times’ but can enjoy a ‘better, brighter future’ outside the EU (ii) Andrea Leadsom opens up motherhood row as Tory leadership battle turns ugly and (iii) an editorial: Comment: Mrs May’s experience is the crucial factor No doubt over the Torygraph’s preference for Teresa May, then.
The Guardian has: “Leadsom urged to sign ‘clean campaign pledge’ after motherhood row” and The Independent has: “Tory leadership contest: Andrea Leadsom named ‘worst Treasury minister ever’”
As the Daily Mail has reported “Hypocrite! Tory leadership hopeful and Vote Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom previously said ‘Brexit would be a disaster’” Not only that. Ms Leadson has continuing collaboration with Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks. Just 2 days ago the Independent had this report: “Tory leadership election: Nigel Farage backs Angela Leadsom as next Prime Minister” which points out that “Ms Leadsom has previously refused to rule out the prospect of Mr Farage taking part in future Brexit talks in the event of her leadership“.
See also this in the Daily Telegraph: “If Andrea Leadsom becomes Prime Minister, is there any point in Ukip existing any longer?“. See also the Vote Leave EU website. Given her newly found obsession with Brexit, a vote by the Conservative Party Members for Mrs Leadson might well bode very ill for the Conservative Party and, more importantly, for the UK.
However, The Scotsman has this: “Brexit vote a ‘golden opportunity’ for Scottish independence“. The article relies very heavily on the views of Sir Nicholas Macpherson who was at the Treasury during the 1st Scottish referendum and is now a Visiting Professor at King’s College, London. It short, Sir Nicolas has some very positive views on how Scotland could go now forward. Worth reading.
The only really good thing about this day’s papers was the total absence of anything about the Poison Dwarf. Maybe there will be some political obituaries in the Sunday Papers tomorrow. The sooner people come to realise how they were conned by the Leave campaigns the better.
The Labour Leadership Problem
According to the Guardian: “Angela Eagle to announce Labour party leadership bid on Monday“. The efforts to reconcile the Party’s Leader with the majority of Labour MPs seems to have failed.
Brexit and the City of London
The Financial Times has an interesting debate: “Can the City of London thrive after Brexit?”
There was something of interest in the International Business Times yesterday by, of all people, one Alistair Campbell: “Boris Johnson and Michael Gove’s deceit led to this Brexit mess – we must be able to reconsider“. It’s a longish and rather rambling piece, but this is worthy of consideration:-
“It is not sore losing to say that to me, Brexit remains a question of ‘If’ not ‘When’.
All the noises coming from the Tory leadership race show they are all in the main thinking about that and not about the country. That is how we got into this bloody mess. The country is having pretty considerable buyers’ remorse as the wreckage continues to wash up. It is not a done deal if the country decides the deal is a total contradiction of our national interest once the consequences are clear.
Theresa May was right that there will need to be an entire government department devoted to this, and that David Cameron’s Unit in the Cabinet Office under Oliver Letwin is inadequate for what is now needed.”
Parliamentary Control of the Brexit Process
The Guardian reports: “Government dashes hopes of second EU referendum in e-petition response”. This will not have come as a surprise to those of us who found the email in our in box this morning. Nor was it surprising that the response was said to have come from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
However, as The Independent points out: “Four out of 10 people want a second EU referendum before Brexit” and this is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government alone. It is well worth reading what Dominic Grieve, a former (and respected) Attorney-General has to say in the Independent: “Second EU referendum would be possible, former attorney general says”.
See also this article on the website of the UK Constitutional Law Association: “Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King: Pulling the Article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s Indispensable Role“.
According to the Independent: “Brexit: Date set for first legal hearing to stop Article 50 being triggered by Prime Minister” the first hearing in one of the applications for judicial review has been set for 19th July 2016. This will put pressure on Mischcon de Reya who have similar instructions – see this announcement. There is in addition a crowdfunded initiative “Should Parliament decide?” organised by Jolyon Maugham QC. Were the Administrative Court to receive a number of separate applications, it would probably want to have them heard together.
This is a case for a Divisional Court bench (one composed of at least 2 Judges, one from the Court of Appeal and 1 from the High Court. In very important cases there can be 3 judges and that might include this one).
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 54.17 the Court has the power to hear any person who has an interest in the outcome in addition to the Applicant(s) and the Respondent(s). There may be quite a number of persons and organisations would would wish to consider availing themselves of this provision. The clock is now ticking.