On the morning of Tuesday 24th September, the Supreme Court made a groundbreaking ruling which declared that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully in advising the Queen to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks in the run-up to 31st October, the date Britain is scheduled to leave the European Union (currently, without a Withdrawal Agreement). Following this ruling on Wednesday, Eurointelligence, the European news and information service run by Financial Times journalist Wolfgang Münchau, wrote in its publicly available briefing that while remainers might be winning the procedural battles, it was losing the ‘true’ political ones.

In essence, they argue that the ruling signifies a pro-leave government being impeded by a pro-remain judiciary, and that while remainers can draw on all manner of procedural and legal tricks to frustrate their opponents, they are failing to change the underlying political dynamics of the country. I profoundly disagree with the premises on which this argument is made and find the dismissive attitude towards these events concerning. Certainly in terms of political outcomes, little has changed and I defer to them with regards to how this might affect the course of events leading up to 31st October. However, this is not the whole story – not by a long way.

The fact of the matter is, the legal case was a political battle, one of immense significance. It was a battle to determine whether the Rule of Law matters in this country and whether a government of dubious democratic credentials can bully its opponents into submission and bulldoze through any and all impediments or limitations on how this country is governed. Limitations designed to protect the fundamental freedoms, rights and constitutional obligations which make this country a democracy. There are two problems in my estimation with the above reading of the current state of play by Eurointelligence: one is the significance of the Rule of Law; the other is the implied characterisation of democracy.

On the first point, the Rule of Law is not simply a referee. It is not shorthand for ‘we must all play by the rules’, it is more important than that. Because the Rule of Law isn’t simply the presence of rules in our politics, but rather characterises the nature of those rules – or at least the standard those rules are supposed to aspire to. That is, to ensure fair government which aims to realise some conception of justice and prevent tyrannical rule. One result of Britain’s lack of a written constitution is that it misses this crucial aspect of the Rule of Law, which in other languages is referred to as the ‘State of Right’ (Rechtsstaat in German, L’état de droit in French). The basis of the State of Right is a constitution which outlines the principles and standards to which government is meant to conform, a bedrock from which all other law stems. There is no such foundational law in Britain, and hence, ‘Law’ is largely our accumulated collection of rules.

The significance of this is that if the government aims to breach the rule of law, by undermining or transgressing one of our core legal principles (such as parliamentary sovereignty), it is inherently making an attack on the one of the guiding precepts of our political system. Precepts which have been a part of our political system since the Civil War, when parliament asserted its right to reject the absolute authority of the crown, and which were explicitly articulated in the Bill of Rights passed following the Glorious Revolution 1688. Parliament has ever since enjoyed the privilege of serving as ultimate protector of the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country, ensuring their voices are heard in matters of government, and forcing the government to respect their voices, rights and freedoms.

In short, the Rule of Law represents an already-won political battle. A battle against arbitrary and tyrannical government. Against the idea that government can legitimately serve the interests of only the powerful. Against the idea that ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’. There are rules, principles and standards which have been forced on rulers, which they must obey. So to reassert this when the government tries to break free of those fetters is not to entangle them in a procedural technicality. Were the Supreme Court to allow the government’s prorogation, government would have legitimately been able to suspend parliament at will, with no justification or purpose, and evade accountability whenever it wished. That would render meaningless the fundamental political principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It would have left it for the government to decide whether it wanted to respect that standards and norms of our political system in the pursuit of its political aims. It would have been defeat above a profound political all for democracy.

This brings me to my second point, which is that democracy is not a principle of government isolated from the Rule of Law or the accompanying principle of citizens’ rights and freedoms. For democracy to be real, citizens’ rights and freedoms must always apply, and the laws they are subject to must apply to all. This is relevant because the argument coming from many quarters is that remainers must concentrate on the politics and forget about legal procedure if they want to win. What is the implication of this? It is that if your opponents seek to silence your voice in suspending parliament, you must simply learn to live without it. If they exploit the power of government against you, you must accept it and make do. If they move to strip you of your rights and freedoms, you must fight without them. Essentially, if you are in the minority, you must defer to the majority.

This is the systematic dismantling of democracy. Democracy is not simply the will of the majority rules – that is the procedural element – but rather that the people are entitled and empowered to have their voice heard in government. The people rule; not the elite, not the king, not the priests or the rich or the experts, but all the people. Everyone’s voice has a right to be heard. And that right never ceases to apply. Before, during and after decisions are made, we can and must be heard. It does not matter if there is a majority for a certain course of action at one moment in time, that majority can never silence the minority or deprive them of their rights as citizens – to likewise be heard, be protected by the law, to enjoy their freedoms to fulfil their duties.

That is why the suspension of parliament is an affront to democracy. Because the opponents of the government of the day must continue to be able to voice their opposition to that government’s policies and scrutinise its actions. They must be able to criticise that government, hold it to account, and ensure it follows the laws and principles of the land. To suspend parliament is to deprive citizens of the fundamental tool by which they accomplish this task – to deprive opponents of their means to oppose. It naturally follows that they will exercise their rights and seek recourse to the law to restore those means – to restore living, functioning democracy. That is why the ‘politics rather than law’ argument rings so hollow to me. It suggests that if you are in the majority, it doesn’t matter how you achieve your political aims, it doesn’t matter what institutional impediments you demolish on the way, because you have the numbers, and that’s all the authority you need. If you are in the minority, you can try and convince people, but ultimately must accept your lot. You didn’t win, you are outnumbered, you have no authority to oppose in any meaningful or tangible sense.

Yet I do have that authority, because I am a citizen, and I have the right to have my voice heard. I have the right to call out the Johnson Ministry’s actions for what they are; authoritarian, insincere, irresponsible, contemptuous of its opponents and of the powerless. I can call out Brexit as a political project too; as a mistake, a lie, dripping with xenophobia and imperialist nostalgia, rotten with corrupt interests seeking to release themselves from the fetters which have built up in the years since 1945 – constitutional protections, judicial review, democratic accountability, international accountability, human rights, workers’ rights, minority rights etc. The list goes on of the bonfire of protections for average citizens which the powerful in this country want to light. And Brexit is their vehicle for it. I get to reject it and all arguments that it is the right course of action.

Deference has no place in democracy. Not to traditional authority. Not to the rich or the powerful. Not to the church. And not to the majority either. I will not convince them, nor them me, but being deferential to their wishes. Of course, I know that legal victories like the one this week will not ultimately win the battle for the future course of this country. But what it does mean is that we can continue to fight this battle. It means that not all is lost. That opposing voices will still be heard. This must be a premise of democracy. That is the only way we can win, and so to fight to maintain the right to speak and oppose is not misguided. Deference to opponents is not what democracy is made of. Respect for them is, and that can only come from being willing to hear what they have to say and recognising their right to say it. This week’s Supreme Court ruling was the opposition in this country asserting its right to speak, and hence its right to participate in democratic government.