Show caption Demonstrators protest against the proroguing of parliament outside Downing Street on Wednesday. Photograph: Daniel Sorabji/AFP/Getty Images Opinion Proroguing parliament sets a horrifying precedent. I’m going to court to stop it Gina Miller Other dictatorial moves may follow if Boris Johnson’s ruse is allowed to pass. The high court must listen to our case against it @thatginamiller Thu 29 Aug 2019 17.40 BST Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email 1 year old

Like hijackers of a plane, Boris Johnson’s ministers and acolytes are trying to keep everyone calm by giving as much as possible the impression of normality. This is the way of people seizing power by force, but let’s be clear: there is nothing that is normal about what they are doing. They are subverting our democracy in a way that is unprecedented. Elected representatives are being told to shut up about the inconvenient truths and logistics of a ruinous no-deal Brexit. Worse, Johnson is trying to deny them the right to take their seats in what was once called the “mother of parliaments” in the run up to 31 October.

The Johnson hijackers are saying that the prorogation of parliament ahead of a Queen’s speech is what always happens – and that it is no more than a normal convention and precedent in our unwritten constitution. But there is no convention or precedent for a five-week prorogation. In the last 40 years, parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks. In most cases it has been prorogued for only a week or less, for example for 3 days in 2015, 5 days in 2016 and 6 days in 2017.

The government propaganda machine also says this is about Johnson being keen to start a new session of parliament with a Queen’s speech. But that has nothing whatever to do with a prorogation of this length. In principle, parliament could be prorogued for a single day for that purpose.

Some MPs have been saying they wish to vote to scrap the conference recess. This would have resulted in 35 sitting days in the run up to the 31 October, so Johnson’s prorogation plan would significantly reduce these sitting days, leaving precious little time to debate and pass any legislation to mitigate against the worst effects of a no-deal Brexit, which the prime minister has no mandate for in the country or in parliament.

The prorogation goes beyond Brexit, so it is unsurprising that many prominent leave and remain MPs are equally aghast at what Johnson is doing. This is not about taking back control. This is about taking away power from our elected representatives and concentrating it in the hands of Johnson and his small coterie of shadowy unelected advisers, such as Dominic Cummings. It is naive and dangerous to assume that Johnson is doing this simply to get a no-deal Brexit through without any parliamentary scrutiny; instead, this will set a horrifying precedent that will allow Johnson to exercise dictatorial powers whenever he sees fit. So much of the agenda behind Brexit has been murky.

‘Boris Johnson is trying to deny elected representatives the right to take their seats in the run up to 31 October.’ Photograph: Rui Vieira/AP

My legal team and I have been in communication with Johnson’s legal advisers since early July. They repeatedly and comprehensively reassured me that prorogation was not an option for him, and that the whole issue was of no more than “academic” interest.

I was therefore stunned by the announcement on Tuesday, not least because their last reply to us was on Monday evening. Lies are being told, professional rules broken, and a ruthless prime minister is subjecting our unwritten constitution to stresses that would have been unimaginable a few years ago.

As a country we have more of a political constitution than a legal one, and as such it operates via conventions and precedents. I believe those conventions and precedents mean that prorogation is not to be used in the manner Johnson has announced, and disagree with the views of the eminent former supreme court justice Jonathan Sumption when he says this is not a matter for the courts.

The effect of a prorogation of this length will be to prevent parliament from fulfilling its statutory duty to scrutinise any agreement between the UK and the EU. When you add to this the fact that the government must exercise its prerogative powers in good faith, I believe there is a legal principle at stake that qualifies for judicial review. I also think that Sumption has failed to take account of the evolutionary nature of the UK constitution, and that in these unprecedented constitutional times, the legal arguments involved can also be expected to be unprecedented.

The charge the Johnson government is making against me is that I am using the courts to subvert the will of the people. But a no-deal Brexit was never the will of the people, and at no point during the EU referendum campaign did the people authorise any government to abandon not just parliamentary democracy, but the laws of the land. Our laws are ultimately all that protect us from tyranny, and before them we are all equal – prime ministers and private citizens alike. Even against the desperate time constraints imposed upon us, I am hopeful that the courts will be able to check the omnipotent power Johnson wants for himself.