Is this what we expect from the modern Labour Party, which rolls over to be tickled on the issues vital to the UK and all because it wants to suck up to the EU and look presidential? So heaven help our truckers! Does Labour represent them any more? 'Inappropriate' to give a UK view? Tell British truckers and businesses, because they will bear the cost.

This report comes from the German perspective at the centre of Europe, ideally placed no matter which way they drive. However, a lorry from Birmingham takes much longer to reach the target. These proposals will cripple British ability to compete in Europe. EU supporters say it is all about road safety, but the EU is really all about money, power and control. These proposals will put a lucrative spy beaming up to Galileo in every trucker's cab. Private vehicles will possibly be next. Look out truckers, because Big Barrot is watching you. So shout to him and say: 'This will take my truck off the road!' or, in short, 'Truck off!'.

On the back of this shocking disregard, it is little surprise that Mr Stubb’s report contains so many howlers. The original draft claimed that the then Internal Auditor had not been subject to an internal inquiry, when the Committee of the Regions’ Secretary-General had admitted in writing that he had been. Mr Stubb claims that: ‘... none of the officials who were the subject of the administrative inquiry has been promoted since the completion of the report’. However, he omits to mention that several of them were allegedly put forward for promotion. Most nauseatingly, the report states that the former Internal Auditor was assured that he had ‘the full support and cooperation of both CoR members and staff’. That man has since been locked out of his office and hounded out of his job for telling the truth.

The meeting, however, was remarkable for something which it did not discuss: the UK’s budget rebate. Mr Chirac at least commented on it after the meeting, saying to reporters that it could no longer be justified, that it was from the past. Mr Barroso echoed those statements.

Perhaps you would like to justify the fact that the UK would pay into the EU 14 times more than France without the rebate, and, even with it, two-and-a-half times the French contribution. Mr Barroso also said that 70% of Commission spending was on agriculture when the rebate was agreed, whereas new proposals would reduce it to one-third. In fact, the proposals are that three-quarters of future spending will go to agriculture in poor regions. That is where the Commission’s priorities lie. That is of no comfort to the UK, rebate or no. Our Foreign Secretary said that the Commission’s proposal could mean a 35% hike in the budget, but he said our rebate remains a veto.

We have an election in the UK on 5 May. I would advise you not to try to join the flight from London to Brussels the following day. You would be caught up with party officials and government ministers, of whatever colour, as they rush over here to seek a compromise. It will be a milestone on the way to Britain’s exit. Worse is better because, in monetary terms, the EU will then be 14 times as bad for the UK as for France. Heaven knows, even with Mr Chirac’s desperate efforts, current polls show that the EU is becoming less popular in France every day.

The threat from terrorism makes national borders and national interests all the more vital, not less so. This report is another step in the process of the European Union attempting to further its foreign policy and military ambitions in order eventually to rival the United States of America on the world stage. Meanwhile, all talk of an ethical foreign policy is put into perspective by the European Council’s intention to lift the embargo on arms sales to China, which Mr Brok rightly criticises and which is driven by the requirements of the French arms industry.

Parliament’s opposition to the lifting of the arms embargo on China will, of course, be ignored by the Council, demonstrating once again the irrelevance of this Parliament.

Britain should regain control of its own foreign, security and defence policies. The only way to do that is through the UK Independence Party’s policy of unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.

Who said ‘when in doubt, hold a committee meeting’? Only a report from an EU institution could say with such a straight face that this is a powerful recipe for success, at least in terms of delivering legislation. The EU is very good at churning out laws: that is transparently obvious. However, I have a warning for ordinary people out there in the real world, like those in our visitors’ gallery: it is transparent to me that more regulation is coming, thus there will be more laws to break; there will be more interference in pensions and insurance matters; more European-level supervisory bodies that will override national ones; and more back doors through which the EU intends to interfere in national taxation policy. The report notes the existence of overlapping directives that might lead to contradictory and duplicate requirements. In the real world, this would be seen as a work of fiction, not a serious proposition.

So, the EU confuses itself, but in the confusion, I should like to repeat one transparent certainty: if the EU is the answer, it must have been a very silly question.

To that question I now add another: what are the European Union’s connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions?

We are now told, for example, that teachers must be protected from noisy children. Gliders are grounded because perfectly safe winches no longer meet new specifications. What business is it of this House to tell a builder that he must use scaffolding to refix a roof tile? It really is about time that the people of Brussels discovered how irritating this interfering trivia could be.

Surely the health and safety of lorry drivers requires a new regulation: to dig up all the cobble stoned streets of Brussels and replace them with concrete.