GINA MILLER ON BREXIT FIGHT AHEAD
Gina Miller has become a heroine for many who oppose Brexit. But her court victory on the need for a parliamentary vote came at a price. During a visit to Cardiff she spoke to Chief Reporter Martin Shipton
GINA Miller sees herself as someone who decided to stand up for a tolerant Britain when politicians absolved themselves of the responsibility that goes with leadership.
She beat the UK Government in court when it wanted to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament – and she’s prepared to go to court again to ensure there’s a meaningful vote at the end of Brexit negotiations with the EU.
For her pains, the successful businesswoman has been subjected to death threats and the most vile racist and misogynistic abuse. She frequently needs bodyguards and is rarely able to go out with her children.
She says she finds it shocking that – as EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier confirmed in a speech earlier this week – the UK Government has still not expressed a clear view on what it wants from the negotiations.
Ms Miller said: “That’s very, very worrying, because we have just seven months of negotiating time left. It took 12 months to do the easy stuff, and now we have seven months to do everything else.
“If the EU is saying they’ve seen no plans or details of any future relationship, you have to wonder at what point are we going to see that. And if Mrs May sticks to the red lines she has, then surely it will be an off-theshelf deal and a Canada-style free trade agreement, which is very bad for us, I think, as an 80% service economy.”
Asked whether Parliament should seize the initiative, she said: “I can sense that Parliament is getting a bit more courageous and worried – rightly so, that if we go in the path that the Government is going, that we’ll end up running out of time, with no option but to accept what it is we’re given. And that can’t be a negotiating stance.
“From my own personal point of view, if Parliament is not given a proper meaningful vote – there needs to be an Act of Parliament, not a resolution – then I would take the Government back to court.
“Because if you think about it, the Article 50 Act fired the bullet. Until it actually hits its target – until we see what the deal is – we won’t know which rights will be lost and which won’t. And that requires another full Act of Parliament.”
Ms Miller accepted that Theresa May doesn’t take that view: “She doesn’t, and I know there are very few people in the legal profession who are on her side, as they were in the original case. We’re not sure if it’s a bluff, or if it’s not wanting even to confront the idea that they could be defeated in Parliament if they had to give a meaningful vote.
“Whatever the reason is, I am confident that there does need to be a full Act of Parliament.”
Asked about the quality of leadership shown by Theresa May, Ms Miller said: “I am a believer in what is called the Peter Principle [under which managers are promoted to their level of incompetence], I think she probably wasn’t suited to this job.
“She’s extremely hard-working, but one has to question whether she was the person for this job at this time. She’s also being confronted with a very split party: there are parties within parties.
“There’s an extremism which unfortunately is also besetting the Labour Party, so you could question whether we have the right leadership in both our main parties at a time when we really do need leadership, with great vision and creativity. And I don’t understand why they’re treading water.
“I just don’t understand why there’s such lack of leadership, because decisions that could be made require common sense. It’s not really about intellect, it’s more about common sense and understanding and taking advice from your civil servants.
“That’s the other thing we know is not happening. We have politicians who are simply not listening to Whitehall.”
Why did she put the challenge forward when politicians had not?
“I’ve been a transparency campaigner now for nearly 10 years. But I was also very heavily involved in 2015 in writing part of the Labour Party manifesto on pensions and investments and putting forward some of the reforms that would really significantly have changed the outcome for ordinary investors.
“It is an area I’ve been in for some time, but the legal case took it on to a
It’s common sense... I could not understand why no-one was speaking up GINA MILLER
different level, and I just could not understand why no-one was speaking up.
“It seemed to me such a straightforward question to ask: why did the Government believe that they could put themselves above Parliament and above the law?
“It was very black and white so far as I was concerned, because no-one else was asking the question. I felt if I didn’t, no-one else would.”
She said the way politicians were behaving in the context of Brexit was “not statesmanlike in any way, shape or form”.
She said: “I actually think if they were in business they would be charged with negligence. If they ran a company the way they are running their offices and departments, it is negligent.
“You look at the checks and balances – there’s nothing which is ever black and white and straightforward, but you do your analysis, looking at the pros and cons, and you come out with your decision based on concrete data information and looking at trends and everything else you’d do in a business.
“They’re not doing that. I think it’s worse than burying their heads in the sand. It’s putting party before country, and their own positions.
“We have got a political culture where people are not able to act with integrity because there is a price to pay. And so there has to be a cultural change within politics that someone can stand up and put the country before their party.
“If I looked at it from a gaming point of view, I believe the best way out of this for everyone including the political parties, businesses again who have been far too silent, and bringing the country together, I think everyone should be given the opportunity to vote on the final options that are given: the deal, no deal or remain.
“I think it’s the most democratic thing that can happen now.”
Has she been surprised by the degree of personal vilification she has been subjected to as a result of her intervention?
“It has shocked me beyond belief. It’s not the country I thought I lived in.
“I thought we had made such huge advances in the way we treat each other and the fact that we had become so civilised in so many ways. What I’ve realised is that there is an underlying current that has been allowed to come to the surface, which means that it’s become part of my life that I receive death threats and I have to live my entire life completely differently. But at the same time, that empowers me to really carry on fighting because I’m not going to let those people be the voice of this country. It has to be all of us who are the voices.”
She confirmed that “quite often” she had to have bodyguards when she was going to places that weren’t safe: “My home has full security and alarms. I don’t really go out with my children very much.”
Has it been worth it?
“Yes. Absolutely. When I was handed this baton, I knew I was standing up for something from a constitutional perspective, and what I saw as being right.
“Now I’m of a mindset where I’m not just standing up for me, I’m actually standing up for all the people who are being bullied and for a country which we must come back to, which is a tolerant Britain, which we’re seeing on a daily basis we no longer are.”
Where does her strength of will come from? “I can’t remember not being a nosy parker, and not being somebody who fights for what I believe in. I abhor bullies – I will not let bullies win.”