Gina Miller has long argued she is not attempting to subvert the will of the people and turn back the results of the referendum, arguing instead she campaigns to ensure democratic principles around “how we leave the EU”.

But now the lawyer and activist has claimed the nation should hold a second vote – with a choice between, accepting a deal, not accepting a deal or remaining – because she does not like the approach of the British Government.

It comes after Ms Miller’s legal victory earlier this year, when she forced Theresa May to bring Brexit to a vote in the Commons.

She told the Independent: “I have up until now been against the idea of a second referendum; but I am coming round to the idea because of what has happened in our political system since I won my Supreme Court case to ensure parliamentary sovereignty.

“The combination of ministers being bullied or fearful of losing their jobs – for example the case of the hapless Stephen Hammond – many of the rebels receiving death threats, others having to put their party before the interests of the country; cabinet ministers blatantly lying, and this arrogant belief that the UK should leave the EU for purely ideological reasons, at all costs, has made me reconsider.

“The overt power that 10 extremist DUP MPs have over our Government, and facts emerging that foreign interference from a hostile power may be being perpetrated under cover of Brexit and undermining our democratic systems, mean I am now more than happy to put my trust in the public having their right to reconsider.”

She went on to claim there was a legal argument for the Government to be compelled into holding a second referendum on a final deal.

She added: “From a legal perspective, there may well be a referendum requirement as a result of the European Union Act 2011 which, according to some lawyers, means that there will have to be a second referendum before the UK leaves the EU, as it is by no means clear that the Government currently has the legal right to do so.

“Pavlos Eleftheriadis, a barrister and legal academic, argues that any withdrawal agreement, and any future trade agreement, will effectively replace the existing treaties – and therefore, under the terms of the 2011 act this will require a new referendum. 

“Professor Mark Elliott of Cambridge University argues, however, that the 2011 act does not apply to a new set of arrangements between the UK and EU. He also argues that even if that were true, the 2011 act created a requirement for a second referendum, which could be avoided by repealing the act. 

“That would mean both houses of Parliament agreeing to overturn the existing law. But it wouldn’t necessarily be particularly difficult. 

“These questions may well have to be tested in a court of law.“

In May this year Ms Miller claimed she had no interest in Britain having a second vote on the terms of Brexit.

Speaking on the BBC’s Sunday Politics London, the Remainer said: “If you believe in democracy, you have to move on.

“I, personally, am not in favour of a second referendum because I think referenda and plebiscite are difficult. 

“I believe in our system of representative democracy, therefore it’s about having strong, principled candidates in parliament to hold the Government to account rather than trying to reverse the process.”