1) Trump supports Britain! He has put the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office.

2) He supports an Independent Britain! Here at last is a world leader who thinks Brexit is great.

3) He really likes our Nigel! He actually prefers Nigel to Mrs May and her minions. He recognises Nigel’s and UKIP’s crucial role in obtaining and winning the referendum.

4) And whereas snooty Obama came and told us not to vote to leave the EU, or we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the USA, Trump says we will be at the front of the queue!   

5) This campaign speech by Trump addressing the problem of Radical Islamic Terrorism is the best I have heard on the subject so far. At last, a Western leader who has identified the main threat to us all. (Given off the cuff, no notes, and has he done his homework! He knows the numbers of victims, dead and wounded, of each and every terrorist attack in Europe and in the USA… most impressive).

And he says that to beat these savages, we must join forces with anti-terrorist forces in the region (Israel, Abdullah of Jordan, Al-Sisi of Egypt), and most importantly, with Putin’s Russia. Very sensible.

In contrast, Mrs May in her supposedly “pro-Brexit” speech makes no mention of the Islamist  threat, and says Britain, under her guidance, must continue to “lead Europe in sanctions against Russia”. Madness… She may have fooled many of us with her rhetoric, but I hope she won’t fool Mr Trump when they meet next week.

Can any of this help us in the forthcoming by-election in Stoke-on-Trent?

Yes, I think it can.

Brexit and the overwhelming Brexit vote in the area will of course be a great help, since Corbyn’s Labour party leadership are and were against Brexit, while swathes of Labour voters voted for Brexit, and so, many of the 12000 who voted Labour last time, and who would never ever vote Tory, can be hoped, even expected, to vote UKIP instead this time. Paul is surely well-poised to gather up that discontent.

But what about the 7000 who voted Tory last time? UKIP did just beat them, but only by a whisker…

We need to siphon off as many as possible of these votes too. The danger is that Mrs May, with her carefully-staged Brexiteering rhetoric, has made UKIP appear to be “surplus to requirements”. The Tory candidate might even hoover up disgruntled Labour voters who voted heavily for Brexit in the referendum.

Surely it is vital that we put as much clear blue water as possible between ourselves and the Tories, in the public mind in general, and in the minds of local voters!

We need to highlight Mrs May’s mess of security, foreign and defence policy, as shown in point 11 of her speech in Lancaster House.

She clearly veers more towards Hillary Clinton’s view that Putin’s Russia is the main danger in the world, rather than Radical Islamic Terrorism. If she pursues this policy, she will alienate the sympathies not only of the current governments of Europe with her Brexiteering rhetoric, which is fair enough, but she’ll also make an enemy of Russia, and therefore alienate any sympathy of the Trump administration by her unhelpful attitude to Trump’s policy of rapprochement with Russia.

And we can stress that her speech on Brexit last Tuesday omitted certain essential themes, which can cause us to doubt that it was basically just froth, sound and fury, signifying nothing more than an attempt to say things she expects her listeners want to hear. But will she actually deliver?

Or is she just trying to steal UKIP’s clothes, so comprehensively that voters will fall into the trap of thinking – “Well, UKIP is now surplus to requirements, so we might as well all vote Tory so as not to split the pro-Brexit vote”.

There are questions she must answer, and she will only answer them if we have Paul Nuttall in Parliament to hold her feet to the fire, and put these, and other, questions to her, fair and square:

  1. Why did she make no mention of reclaiming our fishing grounds?
  2. Why no mention of withdrawing from the European Convention of so-called Human Rights, which not only stops us from dealing with terrorists as we see fit, but also does nothing to protect innocent suspects imprisoned for lengthy periods on no evidence and with no right to a public hearing? (The ECHR does not safeguard nor even cover Habeas Corpus.)
  3. Why no mention of suspending the execution of unevidenced European Arrest Warrants (which she promoted so warmly when Home Secretary), issued on the mere say-so of any dodgy European judicial authority, and soon to be issued by the new European Public Prosecutor? This puts the safety and security of each and every person living in Britain at risk. The lack of any requirement to show evidence opens the gate to false charges, masking other, murkier, reasons for wanting somebody to be put away. In a word, it opens the way to full-blown tyranny, such as our friends in continental Europe have experienced all too often, and in living memory. As long as we are all subject to EAWs, we are a vassal state. Its continued existence in its current form makes a mockery of Brexit.
  4. When is she going to withdraw and disown the outrageous statement she made as Home Secretary to Parliament in June 2012, through her Minister, that she would welcome onto British soil lethally-armed, paramilitary “special intervention units from our EU allies” “if needed”? Did she not imagine that these would be the European Gendarmerie Force, who then would claim allegiance only to Brussels, so would not leave if asked to by a merely British authority, thus leaving the country under virtual military occupation?

Does she really want to take Britain out of the EU? Or is she only play-acting, with her carefully staged rhetoric?

Only with a robust UKIP voice like Paul Nuttall’s, on the green benches, can we find out!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email