The result of one of the most divisive referendums in recent history could be derailed by one woman: Gina Miller.
Ms Miller, a philanthropist and London-based investment fund manager at SCM Private, which she co-founded in 2014, is involved in what is being heralded as one of the most important constitutional cases in generations.
Ms Miller, 51, was born in Guyana and raised in the UK. She launched Miller Philanthropy in 2009 and has contributed to the Margaret Thatcher infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea, as well as to other charitable causes.
She is challenging Theresa May’s bid to avoid a parliamentary vote on triggering Brexit, arguing that triggering Article 50 without asking MPs to vote to approve it is unconstitutional.
Her challenge is being heard at the High Court in London where she is being represented by QC Lord Pannick, a renowned human rights lawyer.
She claims Prime Minister Theresa May has no legal power to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the European Union without the authorisation of Parliament.
What are her reasons for launching this challenge?
Ms Miller broke down her argument during an interview with Audio Boom:
“They can use this very antiquated, secretive Royal Prerogative to bypass parliament. You have to question how they can possibly bypass a sovereign Parliament? Surely that’s what we wanted, was a sovereign Parliament?"
Ms Miller is unsatisfied with Ms May’s announcement that there would be a debate on the issue, dismissing it as “political blustering”.
“I’m questioning whether the Government has the right to bypass Parliament and use this royal prerogative, which they are still saying that they do and that she does, and that she and a handful of ministers will be able to trigger Article 50 without any sort of legal certainty or scrutiny in Parliament.”
She says her case is not about delaying the decision and should not affect the timetable currently in place for triggering Article 50. Instead, she is focusing on ensuring the UK’s sovereignty is not compromised.
“I don’t want a precedent set which says a Prime Minister and a handful of MPs or ministers can take away or grant rights.”
What has the reaction been?
Her legal challenge has come at personal cost. The High Court has heard how Ms Miller has received “abuse, threats and insults” since launching her action.
Her position on whether Britain should leave or remain is not as cut and dry as her legal challenge might indicate
Ms Miller told Business Insider: “Actually, I managed to fall out with both sides - Leave and Remain. I thought the question was far too binary and I kept saying I was not a remainer — I was for remain, reform, and review.
“I thought the question was far too binary. Whilst I agree that we should remain, I don't believe that it's something to be taken for granted.”
Additional reporting by agencies
