David Cameron's blunt verdict on Boris Johnson
The forthcoming and much anticipated autobiography from the former British prime minister David Cameron will provide senior DUP figures with some deeply uncomfortable reading.
Arlene Foster and her colleagues have placed their complete faith in Mr Cameron's successor in Downing Street, Boris Johnson, as well as Michael Gove, the minister in charge of preparations for a possible no deal Brexit.
However, in extracts published in The Sunday Times yesterday, Mr Cameron explains bluntly why, in his view, Mr Johnson and Mr Gove behaved `appallingly' during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.
The politician who led the Conservative Party for over a decade asserts that Mr Johnson was never a believer in the Brexit project but cynically saw it as a vehicle for his personal ambitions.
According to Mr Cameron, Mr Johnson privately claimed at the time that there could be a fresh negotiation followed by a second referendum – an option he now totally opposes.
Mr Cameron specifically highlights the hugely misleading suggestions Mr Johnson and Mr Gove made during the Leave campaign, saying they had `left the truth at home,' and is equally contemptuous of the current premier's tactics in proroguing parliament, expelling long serving Conservative MPs and pushing the UK towards a no deal exit from the EU.
Of course, Mr Cameron gravely damaged his own reputation by calling the referendum in the first place and not only splitting his party down the middle on what looks like a permanent basis but also leaving his country wide open to an economic catastrophe.
While he continues to insist that the EU issue needed to be addressed, he must bitterly regret that he did not instead resolve to agree revised arrangements with Brussels and put the final plan to the House of Commons
We have been left in a position where, supported by the DUP's confidence and supply deal, a Conservative government not only steers us towards financial disaster but, while Mrs Foster insists that maintaining the union is her overwhelming political priority, its final break-up is moving increasingly into view.
The DUP needs to reflect on the consequences of endorsing a prime minister who, on the evidence of a figure uniquely qualified to offer his judgment, cannot be trusted.