It was a landmark ruling that was about the constitution, not about Brexit — or was it? The UK Supreme Court deliberated whether the prorogation of Parliament, which Boris Johnson had announced on Aug. 27, was lawful or not. Beforehand, it had been declared lawful in England’s High Court and illegal in Scotland’s Appeal Court. The matter was handed to the highest court in the land, which is barely 10 years old. It replaced the Law Lords in 2009. This was its most significant ruling to date. Activist businesswoman Gina Miller had filed a lawsuit to contest the legality of Johnson’s prorogation on the grounds that its length (five weeks) frustrated Parliament’s ability to discuss issues such as Brexit, as well as its supremacy. What ensued was high drama in the highest court. Miller was joined by former Prime Minister John Major, which is quite unprecedented, as former PMs, especially Major, usually exercise restraint when commenting on the “government of the day.” Brexit has upended that unwritten rule too. Eleven justices, the highest number possible, sat — indicating just how important this verdict was going to be. The government argued that prorogation was a matter of politics and not the law. The opposite side argued that prorogation undermined the supremacy of Parliament. A jostling of relative power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government unfolded in front of our very eyes. This was important because the UK does not have a written constitution. There is no one document, but an amalgam of documents going back to the Magna Carta, as well as precedent and conventions. This makes things fuzzy and leaves them open to interpretation, which Brexit and an unconventional prime minister brought to the test. The court ruled on Tuesday and it did so unanimously: It said that the court had jurisdiction and that prorogation was a matter of the law. It further stipulated that parliamentary sovereignty stands and that the government must not frustrate MPs going about their business, which was deemed to be the intention given the length of the prorogation at a very important time. Supreme Court President Lady Hale’s final blow to the government was when she stipulated that prorogation had never happened and handed the matter back to the speakers of the two chambers. This ruling is of monumental constitutional relevance, as it establishes the supremacy of Parliament once and for all. It also curbs the power of any government to come. It is bigger than Brexit. However, it would never have happened if Brexit had not divided the country so deeply and left Parliament gridlocked. At the same time, Johnson is a boisterous prime minister willing to take risks in order to progress his Brexit agenda. He wants to leave the EU on the deadline of Oct. 31, “do or die.” Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow immediately recalled MPs for Wednesday. Where does the ruling leave us? There is now clarity on the relative power among the three branches of government. No prime minister will be able to play fast and loose with the parliamentary process going forward. It also put the Queen in an uncomfortable position, in that she followed the advice of her prime minister. She is the sovereign, as the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Many will not be able to forgive Johnson for having put the much-beloved monarch in this situation. The prime minister was in New York attending the UN General Assembly when the verdict was relayed to him. He was defiant as only Boris can be. He said that he respected the law and the Supreme Court, but that personally he disagreed with the verdict. He still vowed to leave the EU by Oct. 31. All in all, the government’s shenanigans have backfired. Johnson may have tried to prorogue Parliament to put through his Brexit agenda at any cost. However, his action has now been declared unlawful. It is quite extraordinary for the head of government to err on the wrong side of the law. Neither did prorogation serve any other aims. On the last day of Parliament, both houses passed a bill outlawing a no-deal Brexit. Johnson had also lost his majority, as MPs waked across the aisle (literally in one case) to join other parties. Then he inflicted even more pain by expelling 21 MPs from the Conservative Party — among them two former chancellors and the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill — for rebelling against the government in a vote on the no-deal legislation. This is an action not generally associated with mainstream democratic parties, which claim to be “broad churches.” Johnson returned to London early to face the (very loud) music. Many asked for his resignation. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn did so during his party conference speech on Tuesday night. However, he is gun-shy when it comes to triggering a vote of no-confidence, as he does not want a general election until a no-deal Brexit is off the table. He is also concerned about his party’s standing in the polls. In any case, a new election may not bring more clarity to the fractious situation in Parliament and around the country. The Supreme Court judgment was important, especially in the light of an unwritten constitution. It has, however, not changed anything on the ground. Parliament is still deeply divided on the issue of Brexit. The only thing MPs have been able to agree on so far is that they do not want a no-deal Brexit — and this too with a slim majority. Theresa May tried time and time again to unite Parliament behind specific proposals, but to no avail. Brexit has shot an Exocet missile across the major parties and the country as a whole. Politics is on steroids and the Supreme Court verdict, as valid and important as it is, has done nothing to calm matters. Up and down the country, people are none the wiser about what to expect after Oct. 31. The government’s impact assessment of a no-deal Brexit scenario, entitled Operation Yellowhammer, was leaked in August and officially released this month — and it scared the living daylights out of everyone. Business, in particular, is desperate for clarity. This is arguably the biggest crisis for the country since the Second World War. There is a big need to unite the country. Alas, there is no Churchill to hand to inspire the people with rousing speeches. We all yearn for clarity. Cornelia Meyer is a business consultant, macroeconomist and energy expert. Twitter: @MeyerResources