Brexit Day 19: 'the Cameron/Osborne "chumocracy" will be buried'

There’s going to be quite a lot of action in the days ahead as the Government forms so you may be relieved that I am keeping this one short today.

Theresa’s new regime

Theresa May will go to the palace in less than 24 hours and will emerge as Prime Minister. In our office, the game du jour has not been Pokemon Go (my wife explained this to me today) but rather fantasy cabinet.

May has quite a balancing act to make sure some semblance of harmony is restored in the Conservative ranks. That would mean giving some big jobs to Leavers. But there is also a deep need for competence and experience – and there is actually quite a lot of that in the existing Cameron cabinet. This is the most intriguing reshuffle for some time. Pesto has posted that he has been told by a May supporter that the Cameron/Osborne "chumocracy" will be buried. He says he expects Philip Hammond, Justine Greening, Chris Grayling and Amber Rudd to get big jobs.

Questions for anoraks:

Will May have a clean sweep?
Where do the Cameroon big beasts like Osbo end up? Will they get a punishment beating?
Will Philip Hammond get the Treasury?
What does May do with the Home Office? Does she promote James Brokenshire?
What do you do with Leavers like Leadsom, BoJo and Gove? Does Liam Fox – he did the warm up for May on Monday - make a comeback?
Will we see moves that send a message? – e.g. Greening to Transport effectively kills Heathrow’s third runway
Will we see the junior ranks shaken up?

Everyone is asking the question: just who is Theresa May? Not a huge amount is really known about her – by the standards of today’s politicians, at least - apart from her Desert Island Discs appearance back in 2014. My colleague Julia comments that her choice of Mozart is sound. Everyone has probably read George Parker and Helen Warrell’s 2014 FT profile by now. The Times (the New York one) also carried a profile last week.

May’s coronation marks the end of the beginning of the UK’s Brexit (mis)adventure and probably draws a line under the crisis of government we experienced following Brexit. However, now comes the really hard bit. The preparation for the long, laborious and difficult negotiations that will define the UK’s exit and future relationship with the EU.

Labour leadership: I’ll get back to you tomorrow

The Labour National Executive Committee is meeting today to decide whether Jeremy Corbyn should automatically be included on the leadership ballot. It was not clear what the result was at the time of writing. Jeremy Corbyn has suggested he will launch a legal challenge if he is not automatically included.

So far Angela Eagle is definitely in the race and Owen Smith has indicated he will run too.

Future relationship with the EU

Cicero hosted Jacqueline Minor, The European Commission's Head of Representation in UK for a discussion under the Chatham House Rule this morning. A full house (and those joining the webcast) enjoyed a wide ranging discussion including some fascinating insights into the mechanics of Article 50. Make sure you sign up to future events so you don’t miss out.

Article 50 corner: M’learned friends special

There are various legal interventions bubbling along which, because of lack of space, I haven’t covered in recent days. These centre on the constitutional arrangements for triggering the Article 50. This is the debate in a nutshell

Article 50 says that the notification should triggered in accordance with the constitutional arrangements of the member state
The UK’s constitution is unwritten and therefore open to interpretation
Government lawyers are confident that the PM has prerogative powers to invoke Article 50 without reference to Parliament
Other lawyers and campaigners say that the prerogative powers are not sufficient and Parliament must have a vote on Article 50, given that the referendum result is not a binding one
Theresa May has said she will not trigger Art 50 until early 2017

There are three legal actions I have read about which, at their heart, dispute the ability of the PM to trigger Article 50

Deir Dos Santos, an ‘ordinary guy’ and hair dresser is to bring an action saying that the PM would be ultra vires in invoking Article 50. A preliminary hearing is due to take place on 19 July in front of two judges in the divisional court. The judges will decide if there is a case to answer. Mr Dos Santos is being represented by Dominic Chambers QC acting pro bono.
Mischcon de Reya may also bring a legal action on behalf of unnamed clients. A partner at Mishcon said Article 50 cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in parliament. ‘Everyone in Britain needs the government to apply the correct constitutional process and allow parliament to fulfil its democratic duty, which is to take into account the results of the referendum along with other factors and make the ultimate decision’
Separately, 1,000 barristers, including over 100 silks, signed a letter calling for Parliament to pass primary legislation to invoke Article 50. Lawyers said a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body should be set up to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations. The parliamentary vote should not take place until the commission has reported

In fact the Cabinet Office Minister John Penrose told Parliament yesterday that “a decision as momentous as this one must be fully debated and discussed in Parliament. Clearly, the precise format and timing of those debates and discussions will need to be agreed through the usual channels”. Allowing it to be debated is not the same as offering Parliament a binding vote on Article 50, so presumably this won’t satisfy the objections raised above. And that’s because, despite all the constitutional window dressing, I presume a big motivation for all this lawyering-up is the hope that Parliament might vote against Article 50 (because the majority of MPs backed Remain). The think this might might halt Brexit or delay it (perhaps hoping that buyer’s remorse would set in).

But law always defers to politics. And surely the politics of the situation mean these legal challenges are a hiding to nothing because:

Hello! There’s been a Conservative leadership contest and Tory MPs have fulsomely backed a PM who says ‘Brexit means Brexit’ . That’s a majority right there, because I doubt even the most Remainy Tory MPs would have the nerve to vote against Theresa May on this. I cannot see Remain Tory MPs sinking their own government in order to overturn a referendum result which they have been telling the World and its Dog they accept and respect.
Labour MPs from heavily Brexit-leaning constituencies would be very brave (i.e. bonkers) to vote against Art 50. Can you imagine the MPs for Middlesbrough or Sunderland voting against Article 50? Really?
Liberal Democrats voting to frustrate the result of a referendum. That’s something I wouldn’t mind seeing!

I would argue that a vote to trigger Article 50 would pass and the timing of that vote is ultimately in the gift of…the Government!

Today in Parliament

Mark Carney agreed to release notes of his conversations with George Osborne in respect of Brexit for the Treasury Committee to peruse in private. This is in response to concerns that the Bank compromised its independence in making the case against Brexit.

Companies and markets

A quick sojourn into the wonderful world of Investment Trusts today. This is Personal Assets Trust plc. It is run by dour Scotsmen in order to preserve capital. It performed very well during the financial crisis. It holds super safe blue chip stocks, US Treasuries, UK linkers, gold and cash. And look at how it’s performed since Brexit!

I covered Italy’s banking problems last week and handily Deutsche Bank’s Mark Wall has put forward a plan to save Europe’s banking sector. Interestingly, the Economist described Italian banks as Europe’s next big crisis last week.

Tweet of the day

Ladies and gentlemen, the Leader of the Scottish Conservatives provides a critique of the political leadership contests: