Today these events have taken place in Belgium, but tomorrow it could be the European Union. We already have a European arrest warrant. We have EU funding of political groups, and I believe that criticism of the EU itself will very soon be deemed xenophobic, and that action might be taken against parties such as mine. Every democrat among us should therefore condemn these moves.

(The President cut the speaker off)

We will shortly have the opportunity to say 'No' to the EU Constitution and I mean any European Constitution, because the gap between Euro-rhetoric and reality has never been wider. The pretence here is that there will be no further integration until there has been a referendum. The reality is that the referendum is being pushed ever more backwards, while integration is being speeded up, with, for example, a common visa policy by 2006 and a European evidence warrant by 2005. I could produce 25 other examples, the most important being the common asylum system, which will be introduced in 2005, with coordination in place by the end of that year. All these things will be in place before a referendum takes place.

As Members of this Parliament we are therefore entitled to ask what the effect will be of a nation saying 'No' in a referendum. Does it mean we will remain members of the Fourth Reich? Does it mean we will just be associate members, or will we be out? In particular, does it mean that any prior legislation will perish? We need assurance on this point.

In fact, Europe cannot tell us what 'No' means. Britain will vote 'No' in the referendum by a massive majority, and will show you what 'No' means.

From France we have Mr Barrot, who will take on transport. In 2000 he received an eight-month suspended jail sentence for his involvement in an embezzlement case and was banned from holding public office for two years. From Hungary we have Mr Kovacs, who will take on taxation. For many years he was a Communist apparatchik, a friend of Mr Kadar, the dictator in Hungary, and an outspoken opponent of the values that we hold dear in the West.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

His new empire will produce taxation policy and he will look after the customs union from Cork to Vilnius. Are the PPE Group and the British Conservatives really going to vote for that?

From Estonia we have Mr Kallas, who for 20 years was a Soviet Party apparatchik until his newly acquired taste for capitalism got him into trouble. However, to be fair, he was acquitted of abuse and fraud but convicted for providing false information. He is going to be in charge of the anti-fraud drive! You could not make this up!

(Laughter and applause from the IND/DEM Group)

From the UK we have Mr Mandelson, who will take on the trade portfolio. He, of course, was removed twice from the British Government, but to be fair, he is one of the more competent ones!

From the Netherlands we have Mrs Kroes, who will take on competition. She is accused of lying to the European Parliament. These may be only allegations, but they are made by Mr van Buitenen and should be listened to. Ask yourself a question: would you buy a used car from this Commission? The answer simply must be 'No'! Even if they were competent and even if this were a high-quality Commission - sorry, Mr Barroso, but I do not think it is - we would still vote 'No' on the political principle that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties; the Commission is the motor for integration; the Commission initiates the legislation that is damaging our businesses across Europe so badly; the Commission is the embodiment of all that is worst in this European Union; the Commission is the government of Europe and is not directly accountable to anybody.

Please, when you vote, take note that 20 of these Commissioners have already said that they intend to attempt to implement the Constitution even before it has been ratified by Member State governments. In the face of such breathtaking arrogance, nobody in the Independence and Democracy Group will vote for this Commission.

(Loud applause from the IND/DEM Group)

I made the comments about Mr Barrot having researched the case very carefully. I believed it was a function of parliaments – even though I am not a particular fan of this one – that their Members be able to speak freely, to make statements and to ask questions. I thought that was what parliaments were all about, so I find Mr Poettering's comments very surprising.

I will make it perfectly clear: if it is proved that what I have said is wrong, if it is proved that my research is flawed, then of course, in those circumstances, I would withdraw the remarks and apologise wholeheartedly.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

I support the Tibetans in their peaceful struggle to leave the grip of China and hope that they will pray for the people of the UK in their struggle to leave the dead hand of the European Union. I respect the peaceful objectives of the Buddhist tradition of Tibet and realise that the rest of the world has much to learn from them.

On Monday, the President told this Parliament that the First World War, a war in which both of my grandfathers defended their country, was a civil war. This is an untruth. I am aware that Tibet's proud history is also being rewritten by the same species of bureaucrat. If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it.

I can only offer a little 1940's anglicised Latin in sympathy which I believe follows the Buddhist teachings, 'noli illegitimatum carborundum' - don't let the bastards grind you down.

You later said that such action would be contrary to European Union law. A number of questions arise from your claim. Are you saying that Member States must pay their dues to the European Union however inadequate the financial controls are? Are you saying that the European Union cannot be forced to account properly to its paymasters?

Under the Treaties, Member States shall ‘take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community as they take to counter fraud affecting their own financial interests’. Are you saying that those words are in fact meaningless and cannot be enforced?

Few, if any, bring aptitude and experience to their portfolios, except of course the Competition Commissioner, who has been mixed up in corruption and the manipulation of major commercial contracts for her personal benefit and that of her friends for almost 20 years. I have seen proof of this, and also proof that Mrs Kroes grossly, persistently and deliberately misled her hearing. More than a thousand pages of evidence are now undergoing forensic investigation and we, a handful of MEPs, will finish the job that the nominating governments should have done in the first place.

Assuming that it survives tomorrow, the Council and Mr Barroso should know that his team of Commissioners is unlikely to survive intact for long.

Oh! I see that the gavel is going down very quickly when I am speaking, Mr President!

My country deserves better and it will get better!

I notice that the gavel is going down after exactly one minute, and not 30 seconds later, as it has done for everyone else.

(Mixed reactions)

You will recall that at the end of my allotted one minute of speaking time earlier today, I noticed you had the gavel poised at 59 seconds. I alluded to the fact and said it seemed a bit unfair that you were ready to stop me when others had spoken for one and a half minutes. I am told – I did not hear you say – that I was lucky that you had not used the gavel earlier because I was saying things that were untrue.

I would be very grateful if you could tell me two things. What was it I said that was untrue, and what is the rule that enables the President of this Parliament to censor Members' speeches?