GUYANA-BORN Gina Miller has won her challenge to prevent Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, from proceeding to activate Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty — to exist the European Union (EU) — without first having the votes and approval of the Parliament. The decision, handed down by the High Court on Thursday, 3rd November, is bound to create further complexities in the will of the people, expressed on 23rd June to exist the EU.Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, in his brief, said: the “Court does not accept the argument provided by the Government…we accept the Government does not have the power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.” It is the Court’s view (that) once the European Communities Act (1972) was passed by the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament, which established an association with the EU, its current status is pronounced on, (and) Government does not have the prerogative to exit.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright accused Miller of wanting to subvert the democratic will of the people, and the Government communicated it would go to the Supreme Court, seeking an appeal of the decision. Its argument is that, given that the “people are sovereign,” and having expressed their will on 23rd June, such is sufficient for Government to activate Article 50 without Parliament’s approval and a vote by the Members of Parliament.

This situation represents a testy time for democracy and democratic processes. On one hand, it is a case of respecting the will of the people via the ballot. On the other hand, it is adherence to the rule of law. Miller, in responding to the victory, told reporters, “You can’t have a Government casually throwing away people’s rights, that why we turned to the courts. It is about process, not politics.”

With the UK seeing 52% voting to leave and 48% to remain, will the vote in parliament be a representation of the people’s will, or will it go contrary to that will?

Supporters of the decision to remain, among whom are Miller and May, have taken to social media to congratulate and thank Miller, hailing her as a “national hero” and “woman of the century.” Conversely, Brexiters are angry with the court’s ruling. This situation is made more complex, for whereas Britain and Wales wanted out, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain, a situation that caused Scotland’s First Minister to say that country would examine having a referendum to leave the UK.

One of the striking features about this entire issue is the knowledge, or absence therefore, that informed the vote; i.e., what exiting meant and the consequences of the decision to exit or remain. Undoubtedly, peddled information and perceptions that being in the EU meant undermining Britain’s sovereignty; fear of losing the country’s way of life, given the influx of immigrants and refugees; concern about maintaining the quality of the public-funded healthcare system being given unfettered access to non-residents, including refugees, all played a role in some wanting to exit.

Among exit voters, some later acknowledged they didn’t expect winning; and some, too, were not equipped with all the requisite information to influence a more informed decision. It should be said that the absence of knowledge, which hinders informed decision-making, and the affinity/group think irrespective of said knowledge, are factors in universal suffrage. That is why it is so important to a nation’s growth and development that knowledge be treated as important; because overtime, while it will better shape the view and influence actions of the once ill-informed, the group also helps to positively influence those with the group-think mentality.

Gina Miller, who is the daughter of an Attorney General who served under the Forbes Burnham Administration, has put Guyana on the map in this landmark case. What the decision now means for the UK and EU, which has called for Article 50 to be expedited soonest, the coming days will be watched with much interest, as the impact continues to be felt and fleshed out.

Undoubtedly, the ruling constitutes an indictment on May’s Government, and it is left to be seen if this will lead to calls for early elections.