Some weeks ago I revealed to this Parliament Commissioner Barrot's past and the affair was whitewashed. Now it has emerged that during his hearing, Siim Kallas, who is in charge of the anti-fraud drive, gave deliberately misleading information and inaccurate dates, and used a misinterpretation as a means of shying away from a vital question.

Yesterday afternoon, President Borrell denied me the chance to make a one-minute speech to mention this to Parliament. You will not win your constitutional battle by burying the truth and by failing to have a proper debate. The whole process will fall yet further into disrepute, although, given the fact that I, along with many colleagues here, will be campaigning for a 'no' vote, perhaps I should be grateful for the manner in which you conduct yourselves.

(Applause)

We have had a one-sided debate here about the Constitution. An enormous amount of money has been spent; banners are being unfurled for the 'yes' side, but the 'no' side is not allowed a say; and when a peaceful process takes place, people are physically assaulted. This is totally contrary to the purportedly democratic principles of this institution.

I ask you to undertake an immediate investigation. You will receive a complaint in writing.

Secondly, why was violence used against women, and thirdly, what steps will the President take to bring to account those responsible? This follows on from my previous complaint to the President, Mr Borrell Fontelles, asking for this matter to be investigated.

Mr Juncker, you say that the Stability and Growth Pact will be your top priority, but your past statements serve to illustrate only the inconsistencies. Whilst I acknowledge that you played a key role in negotiating the pact's original rules, you recently said that the credibility of the pact had been buried and that the pact was dead. Is that still your opinion?

You also said that you have a window of opportunity to cut a quick deal on the EU budget, including the British rebate of some EUR 4 billion a year. Is that so, Mr Juncker? The rebate took five years to negotiate. If your comments are true and you can cut a deal by June, then Mr Blair must have agreed in principle to surrender the rebate. Is that the case? With whom in the British Government precisely are you negotiating? Will the British electorate know about this at the time of the British general election, probably in May?

Finally, the UK Independence Party, and in particular my colleague Mr Farage, has drawn attention to the criminal activities of more than one Commissioner. More details will follow shortly and regularly. Are you to be tainted by association with them, or will you be expressing your concerns and the pressing need for change?

You will be aware that your employees assaulted two of our employees – that is, employees of the United Kingdom Independence Party – this morning, causing bodily injury. I would like to ask whether this happened as a result of your instructions and whether or not you are prepared to take responsibility for this?

I appreciate that you are not the President of Parliament, who has always proved partial. At Westminster, the Speaker's job is to protect the rights of backbenchers. All that the President of this Parliament – who is totally inexperienced – seems to do is to want to preserve the status quo.

This morning he has really blotted his copy book because, last month, he permitted all the signs saying 'Yes to Turkey' to remain up in this Chamber for a considerable period of time. He set a precedent then, so why were we not permitted this very day to hold up signs saying 'Say no'?

Paragraph 4 states that 'The President shall take an immediate decision on points of order'. We ask you – although I know you are not that important in the pecking order – to take a decision on these very important points of order; probably the most important points of order you will ever get in your life!

It will be interesting to see if President Abbas has the will or the ability to curtail the murderous activities of the various terrorist organisations in his domain. Since the European Parliament had 28 observers present at the elections, perhaps they will report what role, if any, was played by Hamas, Fatah and the other terrorist groups in the election.

Parliament has, I believe, spent EUR 17 million of taxpayers’ money on assistance to the Palestinian elections. What proof do we have that this money was properly spent and accounted for? What proof do we have that none of this money found its way into the pockets of terrorist organisations? The European Union has no legitimacy to play a part in the Palestinian – or any other state’s – elections, but if it is going to pour millions of euros into them, then we should at least know where they have gone.

It is remarkable, is it not, that the late President Arafat – who was purportedly a lifelong and selfless champion of an impoverished people – seems nevertheless to have possessed enough part-time entrepreneurial skills to accumulate a multi-million dollar fortune. If only he had thought to remember the Palestinian people in his will to a sufficient extent, then the recent elections could have been staged by his generosity, rather than as a further burden on the European taxpayer.

If the European Union insists on providing funding in the field of Middle Eastern politics, given its legendary levels of corruption we can at least ask that it receive and keep the receipts for its expenditure, contrary to practice to date!

It has to be said that your work programme has been shaped largely by the Commission’s annual policy strategy for 2005, which was published in February 2004 under the last Commission. It is Mr Prodi we should be questioning today about the Commission’s central policy objective of economic growth. He did not do very well, did he? What a travesty of democracy! We have the EU’s policies for 2005 dictated by a defunct Commission and approved by an expired Parliament. It is only the present Parliament that is sidelined.

Do not worry, though, Mr Barroso, your luck is in: very few MEPs will even notice. The UK Independence Party, however, is very grateful to you because, as we are wont to say, ‘worse is better’!

Earlier this week, Mr Michael Howard, Leader of the Conservative Party, announced policies supposed to halt the flow of uncontrolled asylum seekers into Britain. However, EU officials quickly informed him and the British public that this is an area of policy, like so many others, that is now under the control of the European Union and not the British Government. Not that Mr Howard was being honest anyway: Conservative MEPs in this place voted in favour of Turkish entry and are also in favour of Bulgarian and Romanian entry. The Tories pretend to be against unlimited immigration at home, but here they support giving the right of entry into Britain to an additional 94 million people.

The only way for Britain to regain control of its immigration and asylum policy is through the UK Independence Party’s policy of Britain’s unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.

There are very grave doubts about the hearing of Commissioner Kallas, who, as you know, is in charge of the anti-fraud drive within the European Union. He gave an incorrect date, there was a mistranslation of a question and, in my view, he gave some very misleading information to this Parliament.

I have written to Mr Kallas asking for some correct answers, and Mr Borrell received a copy of that letter. So, through you, I am asking Mr Borrell to ensure that we get some correct answers from Commissioner Kallas, for, if Mr Borrell does not do that, then this Parliament and the whole hearings process will fall further into disrepute.

We have no quarrel with the people of Europe: our quarrel is only with the system of unitary government called the European Union. The EU is the antithesis of the accountable parliamentary democracy that the British invented over 700 years ago. This attempted reversal of the relationship between the State and the individual has been foisted on us over the last 30 years by deceit, denial and misrepresentation. But now we understand fully what the EU is really all about. We may not leave during your presidency, but be in no doubt – leave we shall!

The best service you could do to the people of Western Europe today is to get out of the way. Consign the Lisbon Strategy to the dustbin of history, along with all those still foolish enough to believe that bureaucrats and politicians know best.