Boris Johnson backed free movement in private talks, ambassadors say

The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has denied that he strayed from official government policy by privately expressing support for the EU principle of free movement during conversations with ambassadors.

Theresa May has made clear she will prioritise securing new controls on immigration when the UK’s formal exit negotiations begin next year, but the ambassadors claim Johnson’s views were at odds with this policy.

Four EU ambassadors made the claims when they spoke separately to Sky News under Chatham House rules, which allows their comments to be reported but not directly attributed. They said that Johnson had expressed personal support for the principle of free movement and they were “shocked” by the government’s apparently “shambolic” approach.

One said: “He did say he was personally in favour of free movement, as it corresponds to his own beliefs. But he said it wasn’t government policy.”

Another added: “Boris Johnson has been openly telling us that he is personally in favour of free movement.”

A spokesman for Johnson, who was on an official visit to Cyprus on Wednesday, said: “Boris said what he has said many times before: he is pro-immigration but wants to take back control to limit numbers. He did not say he supported freedom of movement and challenges anyone to show proof that he ever said that.”

Government sources suggested the conversations had taken place at a private breakfast meeting with EU ambassadors in London in October and a civil servant had kept a note of the remarks.

One ally of Johnson’s hinted the reports could be a deliberate attempt by other EU member states to undermine Britain’s negotiating position before formal Brexit talks begin.

But former deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat MP Nick Clegg said: “If these reports are to be believed, then Boris Johnson, the figurehead of the Brexit campaign, is treating voters like fools. It now appears he never even believed in the central message of the Brexit campaign: to end freedom of movement.”

As a leading figure in the Vote Leave campaign, Johnson repeatedly said he was in favour of immigration, but warned about the disadvantages of unfettered free movement across the EU.

Commenting on official immigration statistics on 26 May, he said: “We cannot control the numbers. We cannot control the terms on which people come and how we remove those who abuse our hospitality. This puts huge pressure on schools, hospitals and housing.” A close ally in the campaign said it was “very unlikely” he would express support for free movement.

Since May appointed him as foreign secretary, as part of a deliberate effort to ensure prominent Brexiters were involved in the process of extricating Britain from the EU, Johnson has suffered a series of embarrassments.

He was recently reported by the Czech press as claiming it was “bollocks” that free movement of people was a founding principle of the EU and was ridiculed by an Italian minister for basing an argument about trade tariffs on Britain’s appetite for prosecco.

His adage that he supports Britain “having our cake and eating it” – meaning controlling immigration and retaining access to the single market – has also caused irritation in Brussels.

The renewed controversy will intensify growing doubts about whether the prime minister’s insistence on not providing a “running commentary” on the government’s approach to Brexit negotiations results partly from the difficulties of accommodating differing views within her cabinet.

A Downing Street source said: “We’re just getting on with the job of making sure we get the best deal for Britain.”

Clegg said: “With every passing day, the cracks in the government’s Brexit position are widening into gaping holes. If they still cannot agree amongst themselves what Brexit means after five months, how do they expect to successfully negotiate a good deal for the British people?”

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said: “Boris may find his own running commentary amusing, but this is no way to approach the most serious set of challenges Britain has faced for generations. Day by day, more inconsistent fragments of the government’s non-strategy for Brexit are slipping out.”