One of the many ironies of this general election is that Boris Johnson is actually seeking a democratic mandate to devalue our democracy.

I wish this were some kind of sick joke, but it is there on page 48 of the Conservative manifesto, in black and white. “After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts; the functioning of the royal prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people,” it states.

“The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical.

“We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.

“We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays”.

One shouldn’t take these things personally, but it’s hard not to imagine Johnson was thinking about me and my two successful legal challenges to, first, Theresa May’s government, and then his when he approved the line “conducting politics by other means or to create needless delays.”

Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Show all 16 1 /16 Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful The Supreme Court has ruled against Boris Johnson by declaring his government unlawfully shut down parliament for five weeks EPA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Lady Hale handed down the historic verdict, hailed by opposition MPs and anti-Brexit campaigners. She said all 11 judges were unanimous in deciding that the case is “justiciable”, so the government loses that part of the argument. “The court is bound to conclude therefore that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.” EPA/Supreme Court Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Gina Miller and her team react outside the Supreme Court are the verdict. She said: “Today is not a win for any individual or cause. It is a win for Parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and independence of our British courts. Crucially, today’s ruling confirms that we are a nation governed by the rule of law, laws that everyone, even the Prime Minister, are subject to." PA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful A person dressed as a caricature of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a prison uniform stands outside the Supreme Court AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for Mr Johnson to “consider his position” following the landmark decision, while Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson said he was “not fit to be prime minister” Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Scottish National Party (SNP) Westminster leader Ian Blackford raises his arms as he comes outside. He said: "This is an absolutely stunning judgement by the Supreme Court today." He went on to say, "we all want to get back to work, and quite frankly, on the back of this, Boris Johnson must resign immediately." AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Crowds outside celebrated the verdict AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Delegates at the Labour party conference applaud after hearing the news AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Speaker John Bercow said MPs must now “convene without delay” and confirmed the Commons would return at 11.30am on Wednesday AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Gina Miller said: "“As a result of this judgment, Parliament is open, it was never prorogued. I urge MPs to get back to work immediately.” AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful MPs Anna Soubry, Liz Saville Roberts and Caroline Lucas, together with SNP leader Ian Blackford, react. Green MP Caroline Lucas has said the Supreme Court’s decision is “just the start” Reuters Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful “The UK deserves a Prime Minister and a Government who act with honesty, integrity and in a manner consistent with our constitution, at all times." AFP/Getty Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Anti-Brexit supporters react as they gather outside the Supreme Court in London, Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2019 as it makes it's decision on the legality of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's five-week suspension of Parliament. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein) Frank Augstein AP Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful The SNP’s Joanna Cherry QC says: “Boris Johnson’s position is untenable and he should have the guts to resign.” PA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful epa07865617 Protesters react outside the Supreme Court after the result of a hearing on the prorogation of parliament, in London, Britain, 19 September 2019. The Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of parliament by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was not lawful. EPA/NEIL HALL NEIL HALL EPA Supreme Court verdict: Boris Johnson prorogation unlawful Tom Tugendhat MP returned to the chamber in the House of Commons within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling PA

Miller 1 – as the lawyers now call it – focused on May’s attempt to to deny parliament her sovereign right to vote on invoking Article 50. Miller 2 focused on his illegal prorogation of parliament to push his disastrous Brexit deal through without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

When Johnson delivered his short manifesto speech on Sunday, very much in the manner of an accomplished after-dinner speaker, there was little to hint at the dark truths hidden away in his manifesto. It was essentially a document for constitutional change and modifications to the Human Rights Act. And it was presaged by certain right wing newspapers talking about the “people vs parliament” or the “people vs the judiciary”, despite this trampling on the most basic tenets of democracy that have made our “mother of all parliaments” revered the world over.

Believing in the sanctity of parliament and understanding the dangers of undermining it for political gain is crucial to our country’s stability. No prime minister has ever had the audacity to challenge democracy with democracy.

Parliament is the “people” because the people are represented by those they vote for in general elections. I acknowledge the deficits in both our first-past-the-post electoral system, as well as politicians getting away with dishonesty, but it is the system we have.

When it comes to the judiciary, they are once again being turned into a tool for partisan and corporate interests. Our judges are the last check and balance we have on politicians attempts to put themselves above the law.

These sinister lines about seeking to redraw the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts show that for Johnson, nothing is now off limits – even if it threatens the way our country has been governed for centuries.

As things stand, the prime minister and the executive cannot resort to changing the royal prerogative to diminish our rights without parliamentary scrutiny or approval – as the judgment in my first case makes clear.

Johnson has not, however, given up on his monstrous power grab. These manifesto commitments need to be seen within the context of the Henry VIII clauses in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB). It’s scattered with references to giving the minister (whoever he or she may be) and devolved authorities wide-ranging powers to implement delegated or secondary legislation.

The scope of those proposed powers is extremely broad, they give the minister the subjective discretion to “make such provisions as he considers appropriate”. In many instances, there are no limits (like those included in the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) on the exercise of the power, such as preventing retroactive application of the law, the creation of criminal offences or tax implications, and the establishment of new authorities or time limited powers.

The mechanics for parliamentary approval are set out in schedule five of the WAB, but whether the secondary instrument is to be passed by the affirmative or negative resolution procedure is not clear.

In some cases, it appears that Johnson is seeking to write the House of Lords out of the next difficult phase of the Brexit process altogether. It seems he wishes to see that its role is reduced to observing motions in the House of Commons without its own separate power to approve or oppose.

Why is that important? The type of resolution procedure determines the extent and intensity of parliamentary scrutiny. Neither delegated procedure ensures full parliamentary scrutiny, which is why the use of Henry VII powers is so contentious and alarming. Let’s be clear – attempts are being made to make precedents here that will go far and beyond Brexit and threaten our most basic and cherished of freedoms.

Dominic Cummings – the intellectual driver of Johnson’s government – has long been an exponent of disruptive politics, but we need to be clear about what new order he has in mind for when we disrupt what we now have.

Johnson’s manifesto predictably cites “national security” as one of the reasons for giving up on so many of our ancient rights, which reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s famous warning that “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”