Peace protester Brian Haw was defiant last night after a court ruled he must end his long-running vigil outside Parliament.
The carpenter, from Redditch, Worcestershire, insisted he would not budge from the Westminster roundabout which has been his home for the past five years.
He planned to take his fight to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
But Mr Haw, aged 56, could face eviction by the Metropolitan Police after the Government won an appeal against a legal ruling which allowed him to continue his protest.
Last July, he won a High Court action against new laws threatening his round-the-clock demonstration.
But at the Court of Appeal yesterday, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, Lord Justice Laws and Lady Justice Hallett overturned that decision.
Mr Haw was not in court to hear the result. Instead, he continued his vigil in Parliament Square, Britain's most prestigious traffic island, which he shares with a well-known statue of Winston Churchill.
He has lived there since June 2001, sleeping in a tent surrounded by posters and banners opposing the war in Iraq, and war in general.
Speaking to The Birmingham Post, he said: "I'm not going to leave here.
"It has to be done legally, and the legal situation is that we have notified the police about the demonstration.
"Isn't it quite incredible that we have been doing this for five years with nothing to stop us, and all of a sudden Mr Blair has taken away that right?
"People have been demonstrating on this spot for 350 years."
He would continue protesting as long as conflict continued, he said.
Explaining what drove him to continue his campaign, he held up a photograph of a severely deformed baby, which he said was an Afghan child affected by depleted uranium
The Stop The War Coalition, which backed Mr Haw, said the court's decision was "another stab in the back" for democracy and civil rights pressure group Liberty described the ruling as a "blow to free speech".
At the appeal hearing, David Pannick QC, for the Government, told that under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, any demonstration near to Parliament required permission.
The court had previously ruled that Mr Haw's protest was not covered because it began before 2005, but Mr Pannick argued that Parliament had intended to include all demonstrations, whenever they started, when it approved the Act.