Yes we must have Brexit – but not by MOB RULE

Defying threats of rape and murder, woman at centre of this week’s Supreme Court showdown implores...

THIS week will see 11 of the most senior of our judges embark on a momentous legal case in terms of preserving our country as a true democracy. Sitting at the heart of Westminster, the Supreme Court will debate the lawful process required for our Government to trigger ‘Article 50’.

Brexit is the most divisive issue of a generation, perhaps longer. The level of bitterness on both sides is extraordinary, as I have found to my personal cost.

Last Thursday’s Richmond byelection – with the defeat of a Conservative and victory for a LibDem candidate who, like me, believes a parliamentary vote is necessary – has served to throw more fuel on to the fire.

Yet I believe that defeat for Zac Goldsmith in Richmond is a distraction. Brexit itself is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that more people voted for Brexit than didn’t – and as someone who believes with a passion in our democracy, I am the last one to argue with them.

British voters want Brexit and we must bring it about as successfully as we can.

So why, then, am I pressing ahead with a legal action which has been attacked – wrongly – as an attempt to subvert democracy and which reaches the Supreme Court this week? My answer is that the case goes to the very heart of how we are governed.

We have spilled blood over many centuries to achieve parliamentary sovereignty and this has been upheld by respected, trusted institutions such as the courts and our judiciary which are the envy of the world and have a duty to decide on matters of law irrespective of how politicians and press may react.

We are not governed by referendum, let alone mob rule. And we cannot now throw away what has been so hard fought. This is a crucial moment for all of us.

Let me, briefly, go back to how we reached a position of such antagonism. In the early hours of June 24, it became clear that the British public wanted out of the European Union and expected the big personalities they had seen on their television screens during the referendum debate to turn their rhetoric into reality.

It soon became just as clear, however, that the politicians did not have the first idea of how to go about it. Michael Gove and the others in his Brexit gang may feel they have got one over on their old head boy David Cameron, but when I met Mr Gove recently on a panel debate I wondered if he and the others weren’t all a little lost, terrified even.

How could they even contemplate triggering Article 50 – the mechanism that gets us out of the EU – without the authority of Parliament?

These experienced, senior politicians do not appear to know what any first-year law student knows: only Parliament can grant people rights, and only Parliament can take them away.

They talked airily of using the Royal Prerogative – an ancient self-serving right that Kings and Queens once used to rid themselves of their enemies – as a way of circumventing Parliament. This struck me as the greatest of all ironies: Brexiteers claiming the Government behind closed doors could strip away people’s rights.

YET, to my grave concern, no one was willing to do anything about it. Now I am not a politician nor by any normal standards could I be described as a committed Europhile, but with a legal training, a job in investment management, and years of campaigning for transparency and accountability, I am prepared to stand up for what I believe is right. What is more, I am a mother who wants the best possible future for my children and the world they and their children will live in.

So, to be clear, it is not the idea of Brexit that filled me with dread. It was the idea of an unchallenged, unanswerable Government taking us back to 1610 and ripping a hole through our democratic structures.

I started thinking about what my father would have done. He was a politician and a lawyer in Guyana, a very brave man who taught me that there is no point to having money or education or influence unless you try to use it to make the world a better place.

It has come at a cost. There has been a great deal of abuse, both political and personal. I am not exaggerating when I say that since the original High Court decision last month, I have felt frightened and find it difficult to leave the house.

I regard myself as a strong woman but the tsunami of vitriol almost succeeded in knocking even me down. It began with racist, misogynistic and obscene messages online, on the phone and in the post and then became even more sinister with threats of violence, rape and murder.

Yet so much was based on a complete misunderstanding of what I, my legal team and other parties to my case have been arguing. It is not about an attempt to ignore the popular will of the people. That ‘will’ is settled. It is about how as a nation we conduct our affairs – and, ultimately, who we are.

Even Michael Gove, an archBrexiteer, has accepted this, recently agreeing with me that it was a good thing I had fought in the High Court for two constitutional pillars: parliamentary sovereignty and clarification of the limits on the Government’s use of ‘prerogative powers’ (powers to make decisions without a parliamentary vote) in respect of exiting the European Union.

The former Justice Secretary also respected the independence of the High Court judges who ruled last month that only Parliament could take away rights that Parliament had itself granted – in this case, the 1972 act that took Britain into the European Union. It is the judges’ role to uphold the rule of law and yet they have been vilified by some politicians and commentators who dismiss their independence and objectivity, simply because they don’t like the decision.

WHETHER it was Lord Dyson deciding a case about the release of six IRA members against the Home Secretary in 1996, or Mr Justice Collins’s decision in 2003 about support for destitute asylum seekers, judges have acted with total independence.

Their professionalism protects Britain, rather than allowing us to descend into chaos. Our judges are not plotters or subversives – they are a repository of wisdom, independence and intellect.

My lead counsel, the brilliant David Pannick QC and his Mischon de Reya team, won against the Attorney General last month for the simple reason that the arguments were unanswerable: we live in a parliamentary sovereignty. This week, when the Government appeals the judgment in the Supreme Court, I believe we will almost certainly win again.

The High Court ruling does not block Brexit: the judgment created legal certainty where none existed. It clarifies the constitutional process the Government must follow to enable Brexit to be commenced in a lawful manner. It protects democratic government over dictatorship.

Bitterness, abuse, threats of violence – these are not a part of our mature democracy. What I wish for is the best Brexit for all of us in Great Britain.

We spilled blood to achieve parliamentary sovereignty