Cameron’s fury at ‘liars’ of leave

despite being ‘‘certain the Brexit side would lose’’ – and despite being promised the post of defence secretary – because his concerns about sovereignty were ‘‘secondary to another concern for Boris: what was the best outcome for him?’’

Cameron says Johnson wanted to ‘‘become the darling of the party’’ and ‘‘didn’t want to risk allowing someone else with a high profile – Michael Gove in particular – to win that crown’’.

‘‘The conclusion I am left with is that he risked an outcome he didn’t believe in because it would help his political career.’’

Cameron complains that when Johnson attacked him over the government’s failure to cut immigration to tens of thousands ‘‘the rules of engagement had been abandoned. This was open warfare.’’

He denounces Johnson’s use of the Vote Leave campaign bus with its claim that leaving would mean £350m (NZ$685M) a week extra for the UK’S National Health Service (NHS). ‘‘Boris rode the bus round the country, he left the truth at home,’’ Cameron writes.

And Cameron says Johnson privately claimed ‘‘there could always be a fresh renegotiation, followed by a second referendum’’ – something that could damage the prime minister, who says he is now implacably opposed to a second vote.

Cameron reserves his stiffest criticisms for Gove, who pledged to ‘‘make one speech’’ and then ‘‘play no further part in the campaign’’. He writes: ‘‘From then onwards, every time I turned on the radio or TV, Michael seemed to be there, blasting the deal one minute, and saying that EU membership was dangerous the next.’’

Cameron says Gove’s notorious claim that the public was tired of experts was ‘‘appalling’’ and made him ‘‘an ambassador for the truth-twisting age of populism’’.

In a caustic conclusion, Cameron writes: ‘‘By the end, Boris and Michael seemed to me to be different people. Boris had backed something he didn’t believe in. Michael had backed something he did perhaps believe in, but in the process had broken with his friends ... while taking up positions that were completely against his political identity. Both then behaved appallingly, attacking their own government, turning a blind eye to their side’s unpleasant actions and becoming ambassadors for the experttrashing, truth-twisting age of populism.’’ – Sunday Times