All this week, we bring you a Guide to What the Experts to Say; the top insights from the Morningstar Investment Conference in London; emerging markets, stock picks and the impact of politics.
Emma Wall: How do you go from fund fees and fund transparency to Brexit?
Gina Miller: I was actually on the road from the October before the June referendum vote and managed to fallout with both sides, because I felt that the remain messaging was too binary, too alarmist, and I really wanted them to talk about remaining, reforming and reviewing our membership. Because there are many things wrong with the EU that need reforming.
And I think if we look at where we are now the unfortunate thing is the benefits of us leaving Brexit could be that the EU benefits from that reform, but we won't be in it to benefit from that. Which I think is one of the failures of what we've done, but we are where we are.
I was trying to talk about accountability, talk about the fact that politicians were lying and this was not about the country. This was about healing the Conservative Party. So just asking questions and going to the lion's den around the country. And I was absolutely convinced that we were going to leave; two, three months before.
And that filled me with horror, because I didn’t believe there was a plan on either side. And when the government started talking about royal prerogative, I studied law, I'm not particularly clever any first-year law student will tell you they learned about the royal prerogative and the sovereignty of parliament. So, it was how could the government use the royal prerogative, it's against the law.
So, I simply went to court and asked the question. It was not about stopping Brexit. It was actually preventing our governments and setting incredibly dangerous precedent, because we don’t have a written constitution. Which is that any future Prime Minister could use the royal prerogative on the domestic plain and bypass parliament and take away any single right from any single one of us. That was what I was fighting for.
Wall: And you very much became the face of that campaign, but it was a wider group of people wasn’t it behind that. Perhaps you could tell us about how they come together.
Miller: It was very interesting this idea that I put myself up as being the face and seeking publicity et cetera. So, on the 19th July there were six cases that went before Lord Leveson and he chose me as the lead claimant on my case. For two reasons – actually three reasons I think. One is we were very, very careful to make our case a black letter of the law. We did not involve any political statement in our case. It was purely a constitutional case. Secondly ironically, we followed process, because some of the other cases were so eager to get into the limelight that they applied straight to court and you can’t do that.
You have to do something called pre-action letter and follow protocol and that’s what we did. And thirdly because I think bagged Lord Pannick, who is one of the best minds and the courts wanted to someone who could argue a very important constitutional case. So, the courts made me the lead claimant I did not appoint myself to that position.
Wall: And how was that process, because of course there was initial success and then it faltered slight didn’t it?
Miller: How did it falter?
Wall: Well there was initial success and then it was voted through and then there was some pushback.
Miller: No. The court case was a resounding success. What happened after that is spineless politicians didn’t do the job they basically voted against themselves. To have voted against the two amendments, one is EU citizen which is just the right thing to do and secondly against a meaningful vote, is just pure and utter nonsense. Because they've basically -- logic and common sense says nobody can see into the future.
Nobody knows what's going to happen, why would you not want all options on the table so that you can make a choice and vote on that. So, for whatever reasons and there are many reasons I believe. Yes, the MPs bearing in mind what I invested, I feel that Labor Party in particular I should not have had to bring this case. It should have been they are the questions the opposition was supposed ask and they didn’t and they are still not asking.
To watch the whole interview from the Morningstar Investment Conference, click here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEExZtXnDG8&t=2s
