The Supreme Court case today is about more than Brexit – it’s so we can have a Britain free of tyranny

Anyone who shows up outside the Supreme Court today bearing a “Stop Brexit!” banner will have demonstrated they have seriously misunderstood why I’ve brought my case against the government and what it stands for. 

It is so much more important even than Brexit. It is about how we are governed, about preserving our ancient democratic freedoms, and trying at all costs to stop a dangerous precedent being created that threatens constitutionally, politically and economically to impoverish us all.

So, let me start by correcting two widely-reported misunderstandings about my case.

First, it has been suggested my case was “thrown out” by the High Court two weeks ago. Not true. What happened was that the judges hearing the case recognised the matter was of such overriding importance to us all that it needed to be referred directly to the Supreme Court, and with the utmost speed. Had the case had no merit, I would not have been given leave of appeal – or had the rare privilege of the case “leapfrogging” so rapidly to the UK’s ultimate judicial court.

It has also been reported that the judgment will take place today. Also untrue. The case will certainly be heard on Tuesday, but it may be several days – possibly even longer – before the judgment is handed down.

To say the case is important, however, is an understatement. The balance of power between us, as voters, and the executive, whom we elect to govern us, could be altered irredeemably by the case’s outcome.

One thing is for certain: Johnson is not attempting to empower any of us. Imperilling our constitutional settlement and emasculating our representative democracy are, however, very much on the cards.

Say Boris Johnson – or one of his prime ministerial successors – decides to bring back the poll tax, re-introduce Section 28 or put the death penalty back on the statute book. There would be an outcry, of course – but it could be done easily enough if Johnson is now permitted to get his way. 

Proroguing parliament is, if we don’t look out, the prime minister’s right to do whatever he so wishes, no matter how fierce or strong the opposition to it may be.

What we are witnessing is an historic attempt at a power grab by the executive, from the people. Johnson, as prime minister, wants to put himself above the law. He wants to dispense with the constitutional checks and balances, accrued over centuries, that have evolved our parliamentary system into the stable, carefully calibrated machine that it is today – and one respected by the British public and admired around the world for its constancy and reliability. 

Johnson wants to do nothing less than to up-end the entire constitutional edifice in order that the executive should get its own way, and in the face of elected MPs’ serious public policy concerns. This is not only irresponsible. It is also profoundly un-conservative.

This is why people on all sides of the political spectrum – no matter how they voted in the EU referendum – are uniting against it. It is why MPs shouted so loudly the word “shame” as the formal process of proroguing parliament began last week.

Any prime minister before Johnson could have attempted to do this given that our constitution has always borne the vulnerability of not being written down. But, thankfully, no one had ever before been quite so cavalier or calculating about how our parliamentary democracy could be procedurally manipulated in order to achieve the executive’s desired public policy outcome.

The Queen of course has always observed the constitutional proprieties to the full. They lie at the heart of what has made this such a long, stable and successful reign. But, those same conventions and proprieties appear to mean nothing to Johnson. 

In the High Court earlier this month, my excellent legal team under Lord Pannick had a single day in court to put their arguments. Time may not have been on our side, but the law and truth was, and, even when our arguments were honed down to little more than bullet points, they were still compelling.

Calmly and reasonably, Lord Pannick, whom I had the privilege to be represented by in my successful legal challenge to Theresa May’s government over its attempt to over-rule parliamentary sovereignty, spelt out the law.

So far from being involved with political issues,  the case he laid out against prorogation had three principal strands. Firstly, prorogation has never been longer than three weeks for the last 40 years; secondly, the prime minister’s advice to the Queen was an “abuse of power”; and lastly, the breach of parliamentary sovereignty is happening during a period where “time is very much of the essence”, that is, ahead of the Brexit deadline on 31 October.

The case put forward by Johnson’s lawyers seemed by contrast to be more about political soundbites than an attempt to engage constructively. All the way through this whole national ordeal, this has been about the emotions of the few at the expense of the majority.

The judges, meanwhile, have to ask themselves one simple question: is what Johnson is doing reasonable? 

Gina Miller is a transparency campaigner and businesswoman. You can donate to the case being brought against the government here