What he does take seriously, however, is Article 16 of the Constitution that commits Member States to a common foreign and security policy. He has rightly warned that this undermines NATO - and it is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe since 1949, not the European Union.

The British people need to know that the proposed common foreign and security policy will prevent Britain from ever again being able to act independently, militarily or politically, whether in alliance with the USA or not. That is one more good reason for the British people to reject the European Constitution when they have the opportunity to do so.

On 26 January Mr Barroso spoke to Parliament in Brussels about this programme, but Mr Prodi and his team put it together. The new Commission's central policy objective is economic growth. This was also the central objective of the old Commission's document, drawn up last February. Indeed, Mr Prodi made it one of his key objectives when he first came to office in 1999. A fat lot of good it did, as EU growth is lower now than it was then. Fortunately for Mr Prodi, he is safely back in Rome and is no longer answerable for his failures.

The document states that, due to the institutional changeover in 2004, a lighter procedure than usual was adopted for the European Parliament to consider the policy strategy. That procedure was concluded last April – in other words, even before the election of the present European Parliament. We all know this is a phoney parliament, but this demonstrates just how pointless it is.

Europhiles have been complaining that the British people will not be properly informed about the EU Constitution. The Spaniards have just voted on the Constitution, but the fact is that 90% of Spaniards – whom the Europhiles think were well informed about the Constitution – told Spain's state polling organisation that they had little or no knowledge of it, and less than half of them bothered to vote.

What the citizens of Europe should be informed about is not the impenetrable Constitution, but the mountain of EU legislation which will pass through the EU's institutions this year – legislation dreamt up by a defunct Commission and approved by an expired Parliament, both of whom are no longer accountable to the people this programme will affect. However, the citizens of Europe – especially those in Britain – are waking up to what is going on. Soon, not only will the last Commission and the last Parliament be defunct and expired, but so will the whole EU project – and the sooner the better!

I want to suggest how she could do much better than this. Our rapporteur Mr Evans notes that the competitiveness of European business is one of the key objectives of the Lisbon Agenda. Unfortunately, too often competitiveness in the EU is too often taken to mean that every nation and every company has to suffer under the same regulatory burden or the same 'level playing field'. This is not really the same as competition. Dare I extend Mr Hökmark's remarks and suggest that if the Commission is truly interested in promoting competition it should include regulatory competition.

This would be a much richer source of efficiency. Give nations some freedom to determine their own agricultural policies and to decide for themselves how they want to ensure their own health and safety. Allow nations to set their own rules over everything that is not directly concerned with trade or other matters of common interest. A radical suggestion maybe, but it would allow competition from the more lightly regulated economies to provide the spur for lighter regulation elsewhere and we shall all prosper.

For those EU regions that are struggling to converge, relief from over-regulation would surely do much more good than any amount of handouts from the diminishing pool of Structural and Cohesion Funds. Mr Barroso has made some cautious remarks about easing regulation but I fear it is unlikely to occur. If meaningful deregulation could be achieved then all the sorrow about the failure of the Lisbon Agenda could be turned to rejoicing as EU economies really begin to move out of the sick bay.

So why is growth so poor? Several speakers have blamed the Stability and Growth Pact. Some say it is being interpreted too strictly and that governments are not spending enough. Others say the opposite, that we must stick to the Pact more tightly. They cannot both be right. I suggest that both sides are missing the point.

Mr Goebbels says we will raise growth by promoting competition, enterprise, entrepreneurship, initiative, and risk-taking, particularly among small- and medium-sized enterprises. Let me analyse this. I agree that small businesses are important; large multinationals have all the influence, but create jobs outside the EU. However, I do not believe there is a shortage of small business opportunities, investment capital, or entrepreneurs who would be prepared to take risks in setting up businesses and taking on employees. So why is this not happening? And why, when it does happen, do so many fail? It is because we have gone out of our way to make it hard for them.

Go and talk to small businessmen. You will hear the same story repeated everywhere: too much red tape and too many rules, particularly those connected with employing people. These difficulties occur because the whole spirit of the EU is to use centralised direction in a vain attempt to achieve an idealised society by making laws and restricting activity. Examples of this include the Working Time Directive and the large numbers of rules introduced to uphold various rights, each of which has the major effects of crushing enterprise and enriching lawyers. The whole ethos is biased against the employer.

We all want high employment and to live in a compassionate, cohesive society. However, this is only possible when we have wealth. In trying to achieve our ideals by means of coercion, we kill off the source of our wealth. The whole model is in drastic need of revision.

My colleagues in the other British political parties still cling to the idea that they will be able to persuade the European Union to change its ways. In the UK Independence Party we have recognised that this will not be possible. The only way to preserve some prosperity in Britain is to leave the EU. We want our EU neighbours to prosper too, but when they fail to do so because of blind adherence to a flawed model we would prefer not to be dragged down with them.

The Habitats Directive of 1992, which established Natura 2000, states the EU's intention to define a common framework for the conservation of wild plants and animals. In the bold new Europe, even nature has to be standardised. Wiser counsels know this is impossible. When man seeks to play God, nature has an uncomfortable habit of reasserting itself.

As a member of the IND/DEM Group, which has Danish and English co-chairmen, I am reminded of the story of King Canute: tired of the flattery of his courtiers who told him he could control anything and everything, he took them to the beach and commanded the sea to turn back. The waves, of course, continued to lap at their feet and the King had proved his point. It strikes me that Canute had more sense than Europe's rulers have today.

If the EU is not power crazy and really is just an economic bloc, perhaps someone could tell me why it is necessary, for example, to list and protect all species of bat? Has anybody asked the bats? No, of course not. Once again, I can only conclude that if the EU is the answer, it must have been a silly question. You could even call it batty!

The problem for Britain has been the strict enforcement of the CFP to the nth degree, first of all by MAFF and then by Defra. One example was their insistence that a fisherman called Ken Bagley – whom I happen to know very well – should rub his thumb on the underbellies of five tonnes of sprats to ensure that there were no immature herrings in the catch. In the UK we say 'it takes a sprat to catch a mackerel'. Perhaps we should be saying 'it takes a sprat to catch a herring'! Little wonder that Britain's GDP for fishing has gone down from GBP 561 million in 1964 to GBP 520 million in 2003, despite inflation. In Norway, which controls its own fisheries policy, the figures have increased from NOK 7.5 billion to NOK 10.1 billion over the same period.

The environmental crisis in the North Sea is man-made. It is a classic stratagem of the European Commission to exploit such a crisis in the cause of closer European integration. This is known as a beneficial crisis. Europe's solution to something which is not working is to put even more Europe into it, thus a new fisheries agency is created, based in Vigo, Spain. Surprise, surprise! In future, British fishing boats will be policed in our own territorial waters by patrol boats operating under the control of this new agency and sent out on the authority of the EU's inspectorate based in Madrid. Poor old Francis Drake must be turning in his grave. Perhaps we should get ready to light the beacons!

(Applause)

In today's electronic world, banks do not need large denomination notes: they are of value only to criminals. Why else did 10% of all the euros issued at its launch suddenly disappear into Russia? Why is it still the currency of choice for the Russian mafia? Why did Hussein invoice Iraq's secret oil sales in euros when he was trying to avoid sanctions? Last year, the number of counterfeit 500-euro notes rose by ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

When you look at the disgraceful treatment of legitimate tourists in Greece on a plane-spotting holiday, we now know just what pan-European Union justice can mean! That affected only a few unfortunate individuals, but almost everyone in Britain drives a car. If national courts are given powers to impose penalties on drivers' licences issued in other countries, the prospect of a Greek court banning, or attempting to ban, a British driver from driving in Britain will cause a row the like of which even you have not yet experienced from Britain!