Important to note is that Johnson had maintained that the prorogation had "nothing to do with Brexit", and this fact is central to whether he acted improperly (

Important to note is that Johnson had maintained that the prorogation had "nothing to do with Brexit", and this fact is central to whether he acted improperly (which is a separate issue to whether the suspension itself was lawful, and one the courts have thus far declined to comment on). As of today, Johnson is claiming that a Brexit deal is "not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts". So he appears to have twigged that no one is buying his explanation, and is edging towards making it all about Brexit again to salvage the narrative. But I wonder what the legal implications would be if Johnson let slip that he had deliberately mislead the Queen.