SHE tells us that leaving the EU could add “£500 million” to UK energy bills because President Putin “might hijack our energy security as a political pawn to bring Europe to its knees”.

Maybe she should go away and think about that for a minute.

If she is right, then being in the EU will be more harmful to us than being out.

If Mr Putin does decide to “attack”

Europe by massively raising gas and oil prices, as she claims, then won’t we be better off in a free market where we can find other suppliers or come to a separate agreement with Russia over pricing?

Using her logic, if he imposes these rises on the EU then the higher prices will apply whether we are in or out.

To imply that he will raise our fuel prices in isolation, while leaving the rest of the EU alone, is an obvious nonsense particularly if he is doing it, as she claims, to “hijack energy security to bring Europe to its knees”. It simply makes no sense to attempt to do this by forcing the UK to that position in isolation.

What has driven up energy costs, with a detrimental effect to both domestic and industrial energy bills, is the EU’s 2008 “Climate Change Act”, dubbed “the most expensive piece of legislation in British history”, which the government themselves calculate will cost the UK taxpayer “£720 billion” (at current prices) by 2050.

Outside the EU this Act could be repealed and costs massively reduced as a consequence.

Other costs which could be slashed are the “carbon tax” (estimated to add £73 to household fuel bills) and the so-called “carbon price floor”

(estimated to add £105), altogether taking an additional £178 per year from domestic fuel bills by leaving the EU (source: EU statistics).

Far from being worse off outside the EU, as Ms Rudd claims, the facts show quite the reverse.

Name and address supplied