The public will forgive Boris Johnson for breaking the law – he fought the system they rallied against

The vote to leave the EU was the single largest democratic case to rip up and reform legal structures in living memory, and it won. Wasn’t the prime minister just honouring that?

Outside the Supreme Court yesterday, in Remainer heartlands and, simultaneously, on the south coast in Brighton at Labour Conference, delight at the prime minister’s defeat over his attempt to prorogue parliament could barely be contained. The conference floor erupted in cheers as a grinning Jeremy Corbyn called on Boris Johnson to “consider his position”, sentiments echoed by Remainers, many of whom also demanded a vote of no confidence in the government.

But this victory, no matter how convincing, should be dashed with a sense of realism. Those who fought so hard for it need to understand that the public may have a very different perception of yesterday's events – one that, inadvertently, may strengthen the government’s hand.

Parliament will now return to the gridlock it left – a stalemate that has not played well with the public. Overwhelmingly, even among Remain voters, the sentiment for much of the past three years has been “just get on with it”. They became fed up at a perceived lack of drive, lack of desire even, from the May administration to see through the referendum’s demand to leave, and part of Johnson’s “bounce” in popularity came from the fact that he seemed to be making more progress than his predecessor.

Parliament, by hamstringing him as it had done Theresa May, is now seen as the obstacle, not for performing the very important duty of scrutinising the government, but for refusing every deal or possibility that is put before it. Having rejected May’s deals repeatedly, it has now rejected the idea of a “no deal” scenario – which, in the eyes of the public, looks less like scrutinising, and more like frustration. For, if the only deal the EU will agree to is rejected, and no deal too is shunned, what is left other than Remain? What’s more, parliament has also rejected the built-in mechanism for removing a dysfunctional government from office – a general election – robbing the public of their chance to give their opinion, and move the process along.

To that end, many will see Johnson’s attempts at prorogation not through the legal lense of lawfulness, but through the prism of persistence. Where May was ground down and gave up, Johnson is trying to be creative to break the deadlock. The public won’t mind this – if anything, they will approve of efforts to get the country out of the predicament it finds itself in, and blame Remainers for dragging it back to a position where nobody can do anything. It’s that craftiness, that “can-do spirit,” which for all it is readily derided by Remainer bubbles, most people expected Johnson to bring to No 10. He failed this time, but at least he tried.

Now, many people will baulk at this idea that misleading the Queen to unlawfully prorogue parliament might be described as “creative”. Breaking the law, for whatever purpose, is still breaking the law, after all. The problem with this is that many people disagree with the law in its current form – they disagree with the manner in which the whole political system is currently run. Were it a minority, one could perhaps dismiss this. But it isn’t a minority. The vote to leave the EU was the single largest democratic case to rip up and reform legal structures in living memory, and it won. If enough people disagree with the law, then at some point, one has to consider why it is the law at all, especially if there are concerted campaigns to change it. A great many people want it changed.

If Johnson had assaulted someone, say, or stolen a car, people of all stripes would condemn him, and call for his resignation at the very least. But don’t think for one second Leavers will abandon the prime minister for going against a system many of them feel there is already a democratic mandate for going against.