Boris Johnson warned ministers there was a "high chance" he would fail to get a new deal with the European Union over Brexit, documents show.
The comments in a cabinet conference call were disclosed at the High Court, where the prime minister's decision to suspend parliament is being challenged by businesswoman Gina Miller.
Mr Johnson's lawyers argue prorogation was a political, not a legal, matter.
A judgement in the case is expected on Friday morning.
A similar legal challenge heard at Edinburgh's Court of Session on Wednesday failed.
PM's plan 'an unlawful abuse of power'
Court releases PM's Parliament shutdown memos
Judge rejects parliament shutdown legal challenge
In 2017, Ms Miller won a case which stopped ministers triggering the Article 50 process - by which the UK leaves the EU - without a vote in parliament.
Outlining her latest case, Lord Pannick QC said prorogation breached the legal principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.
'Threat to policies'
The prime minister announced on 28 August he wanted the five-week shutdown - a process known as prorogation - to start next week.
This means MPs and peers will not return to parliament until 14 October for the Queen's Speech, when Mr Johnson says he will outline his "exciting agenda" for the new term.
Opening the hearing on Thursday, Ms Miller's lawyer said Mr Johnson saw Parliament as a "threat to the implementation of his policies", in particular whether a deal could be made with the EU.
Lord Pannick argued the reason given by Mr Johnson for suspending Parliament - to introduce a new programme of legislation - did not require a five-week suspension.
The minutes of the Cabinet conference-call show the prime minister had briefed colleagues about the progress of talks with Brussels on 28 August.
In a summary of final remarks about the progress of talks with Brussels, the minutes read: "Concluding the prime minister said that progress with the EU should not be exaggerated but it was substantial.
"Whilst there was a good chance that a deal could be secured, there was also a high chance that it could not."
Days earlier, in a BBC interview at the G7 summit, Mr Johnson had said that a deal was "touch and go".
The minutes also show ministers agreed they needed to carefully consider "messaging" over the timetable to avoid accusations that the government was attempting to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny of its Brexit strategy.
Lord Pannick referred to another of the documents in his address to the High Court - a note in Mr Johnson's own handwriting.
It said the whole September session of Parliament was a rigmarole introduced to show the public that MPs were earning their crust - and he saw nothing "especially shocking" about this prorogation.
Lord Pannick argued this showed Mr Johnson did not understand the role of Parliament in proposing and considering legislation and holding the government to account during "such a critical period".
'Not for the courts'
Lord Pannick went on to stress that the court was not being asked to express any view about the wisdom of the UK leaving the European Union, nor what action should be taken before 1 November.
"Our case is concerned - and only concerned - with issues of law," he said.In response, Sir James Eadie QC, representing Mr Johnson, argued proroguing Parliament was an inherently political act - not a matter for the courts and law.
He also said the sitting of Parliament was a matter of constitutional convention rather than law - and judges cannot tinker with conventions as they are a matter for political balance.
Sir James rejected Gina Miller's lawyer's claim that prorogation was intended to deprive Parliament of an ability to legislate, specifically in relation to a no-deal Brexit.
Sir John Major, former Conservative prime minister, who was given the go ahead to join her legal action and intervene in the case in writing, believes Mr Johnson's move is aimed at preventing MPs from opposing a no-deal Brexit.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, who is Scotland's senior law officer, the Welsh government and shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti have also been given permission to intervene in writing.
It is not possible to mount a legal challenge to the Queen's approval of the suspension but Sir John and Ms Miller believe they can legally challenge the advice the Queen's prime minister gives her.
0 comments:
Post a Comment