That simply cannot be right and I am asking under Rule 108 - and yes, I do think that football may be important, but this is rather more important - that Mr Barroso come here this afternoon so he can explain to us the circumstances of Mr Barrot’s appointment and we can discuss why our scrutiny procedures failed so dismally. Then perhaps we can seek some assurances from Mr Barroso that next time things are going to be different. What could be more important here today in this European Parliament than having this debate?

This Commission, like the Commission that went before it and the one before that, starts under the most enormous shadow and I do not think that these European institutions will have any credibility at all unless we have this debate.

(Applause)

Tonight we are discussing Monaco and San Marino, but this directive will also affect some British overseas territories, namely the Cayman Islands, some other Caribbean islands and Gibraltar, territories that depend heavily on banking and financial services for their economic existence. In the great tradition of European legislation, this directive extends the power of the European Union whilst damaging the economic performance and viability of the victims of that legislation.

In relation to the European Union, the British Government has acted true to form in its usual cowardly and treacherous manner. Just as it betrays its own people, it has betrayed its dependent peoples in order to fulfil its higher loyalty to the European Union.

Looking on the bright side – who knows? – perhaps this directive may help in time to turn up some of the countless millions that have been embezzled from the European Union. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that those millions along with other perfectly legitimate millions will be subject to capital flight and will be reinvested outside the reach of the European Union.

I would ask any MEP who values national sovereignty to vote against this directive.

You talked this morning about leading in Europe, and there is much talk of five-year plans, of the great visions that you have; but it seems to me that you have one or two problems. There is the problem of legitimacy, and the Commission has the problem of credibility. On whose authority are you people the government of Europe? I certainly have never been asked whether that is what I want. The total failure of the hearings of the Commissioners that went through this Parliament has cast a very dark shadow over your Commission. You know as well as I do that the gap between what you want and what the ordinary voters want is getting wider. That is why the turnout in the European elections in June was down to a record low. People know that the Lisbon agenda is nothing more than a joke and that the economic model in the European Union is simply not working.

Perhaps the Constitution and the referendums that we are going to have offer us both a chance for a solution; but they must be free and fair referendums. I would like your assurance that any information that goes out to Member States in which there are going to be referendums presents both sides of the argument, so that we can have a free and fair result. Not to do so is to risk long-term public contempt.

They also tell us that the EU budget is small in comparison with national budgets. However, national budgets pay for some useful things, such as defence, education, health care and pensions. The EU budget pays for subsidies to agriculture – subsidies that agriculture would function better without. It pays for regional projects that would otherwise not have been considered worthwhile. It pays for poorly targeted overseas development aid. It pays for auditors to find out that 93% of reported spending was unsafe or riddled with errors. It pays for this Parliament.

Let us stop arguing about how much should be spent on this or that project or initiative in vain pursuit of the Lisbon Agenda. Let us look at the broader picture. As the last speaker has just said, several countries with their own budget problems want a limit of one per cent of GNI. The Commission rightly points out that it must be much larger if the expectations of the new accession countries are to be fulfilled. How much larger – two per cent, four per cent? If the EU were genuinely concentrating on the ideals it keeps proclaiming – peace, prosperity, strong economies – it would be acting very differently. It would not be looking at these various projects: it would be opening its markets properly, internally and externally; it would cease killing off our businesses with thousands of ill-judged prescriptive rules, and its budget could be a small fraction of one per cent of GDP.

The decisions made by this Parliament on the transportation of animals have been repeatedly ignored and horrendous suffering continues. Over 3 million animals every year endure journeys lasting 30 hours or more in unacceptable conditions and many die in transit.

Were this not bad enough, even more suffering is now being planned by the European Union under the REACH Directive, and we will see millions more animals moved around for live testing. To those in the outside world – the real world – who are as appalled as I am by all this, I have a simple message. I wish the European Union would interfere and legislate less, for if the European Union is the answer it must surely have been a very stupid question.

I understood this House to provide immunity from prosecution or from reprisals for words uttered in this Chamber during a plenary session. How else can a genuine parliament function, or is this not a genuine parliament?

After Mr Farage spoke, the question of French law was invoked. We are on French soil but the relevance of French law is questionable, as we are endlessly reminded that EU law takes precedence over national law. So my question is this: had Mr Farage the right to speak his mind as he did and, if not, how and on what authority is Members' freedom of speech in this House curtailed?

Why should I vote for this? Tell me! Why should any of my constituents? Why should any of my countrymen? In my country, there are 2.6 million pensioners living in poverty on means-tested benefits; there are 3.6 million children below the poverty level; there are 3.9 million childless adults living in poverty; and we are a rich country! We are the fourth-largest economy in the world.

Why are so many of my constituents living in poverty? Because you lot get the money! Because 19 billion pounds of it goes to the inefficient common agricultural policy to support inefficient French, Italian and Greek farmers. Why should my constituents suffer for their fraud, their corruption, and their inefficiency? They should not. Just taking back our money from the common agricultural policy would increase pensions by 30 pounds a week. Were my constituents asked to give the money to France, Italy and Greece? No! Were they consulted? No! Were they given a vote? No! And would they have voted for it had they been? No, they would not; and neither will I.

You can put your gavel down now, Mr President, because I have finished on time.