The eurozone is already starting to show signs of fraying at the edges. The break-up of the European single currency, which is only a matter of time, will kill political and economic integration stone dead once and for all.

Ordnance Survey has been in existence for 215 years and has a long and distinguished record. Over the last 20 years or so, it has built itself up from a government-funded organisation into a successful commercial enterprise. Under its current arrangements, it has responsibility for its own finances and freedom to develop new customer-related initiatives. Inspire puts all that at risk and will undermine its successful commercial operation.

Why is this being done? Once more we see the dead hand of EU harmonisation and the EU's need to control every aspect of its Member States' lives. Also evident in this directive is the sinister presence of Galileo, the EU's 'big brother' spy satellite, its eye in the sky. How much more effective that will be when the EU has control of national mapping services. According to the Commission's own report, those involved in the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies, particularly the Commission itself, will be the main beneficiaries of this proposal. The British Government should have told the EU to get lost. However, we can always rely on its cowardice and craven surrender to the EU.

I would ask you to vote against this directive, but knowing your insatiable appetite for more and more legislation, I know I am wasting my breath. Perhaps the growing torrent of damaging legislation imposed on the United Kingdom might help to bring the British Government and its people to their senses and bring forward the day of Britain's unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.

In the recent British general election, all the large pro-EU parties made impossible promises about containing immigration. Their pledges were incompatible with EU membership. The Commission itself said so with regard to the Conservative Party's asylum proposals. But it is internal EU immigration that really demonstrates the futility of their promises. Over 130 000 people from Eastern European countries entered the UK between May and December 2004: ten times the maximum official predictions. We bear no ill-will to the people of the new Member States. But go to London and observe its creaking housing, transport and health systems: it cannot cope with such a large and sudden increase in population.

Now Spain intends to grant legal status to up to 700 000 illegal immigrants. These people will then be free to move to Britain if they wish. Spain's selfish and irresponsible act demonstrates how Britain can have no independent immigration policy inside the European Union.

An obligation to declare or disclose cash movements could easily be changed to impose an actual limit on the movement of money out of the European Union. Yesterday in this Chamber I spoke of the certainty of the eventual failure of the European single currency. It is obvious that the proposals in this report anticipate a future crisis of confidence in the euro. When that happens the European Commission and European Central Bank will want to prevent the movement of money out of the eurozone. To include Britain in these restrictive measures is to couple insult with injury. It is yet another reason, if one were needed, for Britain's unconditional withdrawal from the European Union.

Rather than pretending that fiscal discipline can be achieved, we should consider the consequences when it is not achieved. Let me focus on Italy, where the deficit has now been shown to have been above the 3% margin for several years; debt is 106% of GDP; inflation is making the economy increasingly uncompetitive and economic growth is negative. The real danger here is that these conditions will culminate in a credible threat from Italy to reissue its own national currency, enabling it to devalue and thereby regain competitiveness without painful and prolonged deflation. Such an action would have serious Argentina-style results for Italy but could, nevertheless, be seen as the best course of action.

But a decision by Italy to re-issue the lira would undermine confidence in the ability of the euro to survive as a multinational currency. Other EU countries would then be faced with the prospect of providing the Italian Government with large-scale financial assistance to persuade it to stay with the euro.

Mr Barroso, it is not a case of going too quickly, you are going in the wrong direction. Allied to that, I see the rapid rise of political extremism, of nasty nationalism, of blind nationalism; it is Euro nationalism and it knows no bounds. I know that you intend to treat the peoples of Europe with contempt by pushing this through without ratification. History will catch up with you.

The EU is the body whose common fisheries policy has created massive iniquities. Take the unfair treatment of United Kingdom fishermen, now, thanks to Brussels, struggling to survive, while Spanish fishermen, for example, seem able to flout the rules at will. Consider, too, the appalling depletion of fish stocks in EU waters as a direct result of the CFP. Then there is the fact that one million tonnes of dead fish are thrown back into the North Sea every year. Not only is it hugely wasteful, it is also damaging the ecosystem. Evidence, indeed, of the law of unintended consequences.

The EU has also concluded unfair and immoral fishing agreements with many third world countries in Africa, which allow European factory farming boats, not unlike the ones that pose a threat to dolphins, to come down and plunder African seas of all their fish. So badly has that hit the local economies that local fishermen have now turned to hunting in their hinterland, destroying local wild animal stocks. These debt-ridden countries have little option but to accept grossly inadequate sums of money for this presumed privilege. It is therefore no surprise to me to see the EU attempt to sign up to an agreement that has been condemned by dolphin conservationists. Why, after all, should the EU listen to experts?

Vessels participating in this programme are allowed a dolphin mortality limit. Explosives and speedboats are commonly used to scare dolphins and the programme even allows the deliberate killing of these animals, with over 1 400 observed dead last year, according to the Earth Island Institute's 'Dolphin Safe' programme. If the EU were genuine about this sort of issue, it would adopt the position taken by the United Kingdom and ban pair trawling. After all, we in Britain have made some good decisions. We stayed out of the euro zone, our Prime Minister has probably dealt a mortal blow to the proposed Constitution, but, instead of following good practice, the EU seeks to sign up to a questionable agreement, simply to attempt once more to justify its own dubious international status. It shows, yet again, that if the EU is the answer it must have been a very stupid question.

It has been suggested in the media that Mr Blair allowed the rebate to be discussed when such discussions were not necessary, thereby falling into a trap laid by President Chirac who wished to distract attention from the French 'no' vote. In fact the rebate was always going to be discussed last week because Mr Juncker was determined it should be. His window of opportunity was almost closed, the curtain rapidly falling across his presidency. Mr Juncker is right about one thing: the EU is in profound crisis and for that we can look back in gratitude upon his six months at its helm.

I would also like to thank Mr Juncker for his verdict on the French and Dutch 'no' votes. His quote, 'I want to believe obstinately that neither the French or the Dutch have rejected the Constitutional Treaty', will go down in history as being typical of the attitude of the EU's political elite in the 21st century.

I come from Devon, where we are often referred to as simple country folk. Despite – or perhaps because of – my simplistic outlook on life, I found the EU Constitution incredibly easy to understand. It is abundantly clear that if you wish to see your country retain its independence, you have to vote 'no'. Clearly the French and the Dutch share a Devonian's ability to understand it. What part of the word 'no' does Mr Juncker not understand?

There you were at the Summit last week, the tough British Prime Minister, and I am sure that millions of people at home were watching the early evening news saying there he is! That is our boy, he is the man that is going to stand up for British interests. In fact it seems to me that you are a europhile that has been mugged by reality. Now you are going to lead a battle for the future of Europe. Several times in the last week you have talked about the 21st century, you have talked about the need to modernise. It seems that the devastatingly brilliant third way that you introduced into British politics is what you are going to bring in during this presidency here. The question is, will it work in the European Union?

I am the joint leader of the only Group in this Parliament that has actively been campaigning for 'no' votes in the Constitutional referendums. So we feel that we are perhaps rather more in touch with public opinion than all the rest of the Groups in this Parliament.

(Cheers from the IND/DEM Group)

But I have to say that you are just about the only European Leader who really understands why the people of France and Holland voted 'no'. I agree with what you said earlier, i.e. that they were saying 'no' to the direction that the European Union is going in. I am asking you in your presidency to make sure that those people in France and Holland are not treated with contempt. I am asking you to make sure that the parts of the Constitution such as the separate military command structure, the European Space programme and the establishment of the European Union foreign embassies across the world are halted because they are only given legitimacy by a Constitution that is now best part dead.

You have talked much in recent times about Africa and I know you are very proud of the fact that the aid that will be going to Africa is going up in value. However, the one thing I have spoken on more times in this House since 1999 than any other subject are the appalling European Union fisheries deals with black Africa. There are now over twenty of these deals in place. They are destroying any hope, any prospect for the local artisanal fishermen. We are actually killing hundreds and hundreds of local fishermen every year and what we are doing to the seas off Africa is the environmental equivalent to setting fire to the Serengeti. Everybody here has been deaf to what I have been saying on this, but I believe there is now a body of support across this Parliament to end these deals. If you really want to help Africa, please, stop those deals.

But of course the big challenge, and what you will be judged by, is whether you can turn this ship around; whether you can make Europe more competitive; whether you can make the Lisbon Agenda appear to be rather more than just a child's wish list to Father Christmas.

Of course my view – our view in UKIP and most of us here on this side of the House – is that we would much rather see a common market. We would much rather see a free trade deal across Europe, rather than the Treaty of Rome and all that has come since. I know that you are not going to do that over the course of the next six months, but I think you have got a real problem. You said earlier that you wanted Europe to do what it was set up to do. Jean Monnet was the inspiration behind this and he wanted a system whereby, under the acquis communautaire, the Community picked up power along the way. I would argue that if you now speak to small and medium-sized businesses – not just in Britain, but right across the European Union – the trouble is that the legislation, the acquis communautaire, the body of law, has gone too far already. The challenge for your presidency – and perhaps you could explain to me in your response – is how you are going to turn the ship around. If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind. I may even think it is worth us staying as a Member State.

Projects have been started which depended on the Constitution for their legitimacy. A European president and foreign minister, a European public prosecutor, diplomatic service, space policy, a European Defence Agency and Rapid Reaction Force, a Fundamental Rights Agency to enforce a charter that now has no standing, a police force and a European asylum and immigration policy. These bits of the Constitution cannot be forced into being against the will of the people.

We have had far too much unaccountable and interfering government from this place over the years. The British presidency should take three immediate and crucial steps: to enforce the rule of law in this place; to abandon projects which pre-empted the Constitution and now have no legal basis; and to guarantee that no attempt will be made to implement any part of it.