The lack of realism within this report is emphasised by the appeal for a 15% increase in the number of science graduates in the EU between now and 2010. This is unachievable because young scientists, once graduated, are emigrating in ever-increasing numbers, mainly to the United States. Even today the Commission's own survey says 400 000 European science and technology graduates have emigrated to find jobs. Why is this? The answer is startlingly simple: endless EU regulation and red tape is smothering innovative businesses, leaving them with little choice but to relocate or close down.

In this context the report serves to highlight the fact that, irrespective of the level of investment made by the Member States in education and training, if businesses and industry have relocated due to suffocating regulation, the investment will not be returned. This report ignores the fact that, at the current rate of progress, the Lisbon objectives will not be reached. Attempts to prevent this failure, even by further EU misguidance, are doomed to fail.

If Iraq does not successfully transform into a democratic state, then the whole region will be destabilised. Mr Figeľ had nothing much to say except to offer more of the process of proffered dialogue and cooperation. As the British Government has discovered over the last few years, this approach has so far not yielded much success.

The seriousness of the situation and the difficulty in resolving it peacefully cannot be overstated, but it will not be solved by the European Union. Once again the EU presumes to take on the attributes of a political state. The serious situation posed by Iran must be addressed by the properly constituted sovereign states working within the properly constituted international institutions.

If the EU successfully develops its European defence identity – that is, an EU military force – and if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, then a militarised EU will share a border not only with Iran, but also with Iraq and Syria. If the current situation is alarming, then just imagine that one.

This particular piece of idiocy is a direct consequence of the Labour Government’s decision in 1998 to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. If enforced, this verdict means that Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer; Ian Brady, the moors murderer: Robert Black, the child killer; and every paedophile and criminal in British prisons will have a say in what kind of government we elect. This ruling clearly demonstrates why Britain should regain control of its own affairs.

I would say to the British Presidency that this gives it an opportunity. It was in this very room that Tony Blair said that he wanted to give a lead in Europe and to re-engage the peoples of Europe. Here is something that the British Presidency could do easily and painlessly: end the secrecy; chalk up a success for the British Presidency. I suspect that by the end of December Mr Blair is going to need to have had one or two successes.

A few weeks ago, it was telling Iraq how to draw up a Constitution, despite its own difficulties in that regard.

Today, it unveils its 'Strategy for Africa', preaching with sheer effrontery about good governance.

The problem with African democracy, the Commission has the nerve to say, is 'limited information' and "endemic corruption"; there is a 'crisis of legitimacy', with a 'growing disconnect between the “legality” of the state apparatus and its legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary people.'

Sounds familiar?

Well, here's a real gem from the document: 'Too often, elections become a source of conflict, because the losing side does not accept defeat.'

It is just months since we heard the then President of the EU Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, saying that he refused to believe the French and Dutch voted 'No' to the Constitution.

So I say to the Commission – and to all the politicians in this Parliament who share Mr Juncker's view – Africa does not need any lessons from you, but if you really want to set an example, accept defeat on the Constitution. Face up to the fact that voters put you on the losing side. And before you preach any more sermons, start addressing your own bad governance here.

The rapporteur has produced an extraordinarily unhelpful explanatory statement, which is really little more than a blow-by-painful-blow account of a paper trail. At the end there is a complicated appendix which seeks to lay down the law on the specifications for codends and even the exact size and shape of codend buoys. Why this House should be preoccupying itself with such minutiae is beyond me, unless it is yet another symptom of the European Union's limitless propensity for control-freakism. Doubtless these technical specifications will have been dreamt up by bureaucrats without the slightest experience of sea fishing and will therefore cause enormous problems for the people who have to have such experience and work on a daily basis.

I do not believe that the EU has any business in involving itself in conservation in the Baltic, or anywhere else for that matter. These issues should be resolved by sensible negotiation between national government and fishermen, not by an unelected bureaucracy with an absolutely appalling track record for environmental vandalism.

A survey from Morgan Stanley reveals that Europe's largest companies are planning to make 40% of their investments outside the European Union. The reason for this is obvious. It is the brake on enterprise and business exerted by the ever-growing bonds of regulation and red tape from the European Union. A report from Open Europe and Oxford Economic Forecasting shows that the United Kingdom could increase its gross domestic product by 1.4% if it traded freely with the rest of the world, while maintaining a free trade agreement with the European Union. In other words, leave the European Union, but trade freely with Europe and the world. That, of course, is the policy of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Common sense may eventually prevail.

The donations to Labour have continued, and again, coincidentally under the British Presidency, anti-dumping tariffs on steel produced by Mittal outside the EU have continued to be reduced by Commissioner Mandelson.

But what will happen once Romania and Bulgaria are on the inside? They hope, of course, for an increase in their standard of living, but with that comes an increase in the costs of production. Just as Mittal moved production from Ireland to Romania, where will Romania’s production go in due course? Would it be Kazakhstan or Algeria, Serbia, Bosnia? All of these countries' steel industries have been bought with aid from loans from the EBRD and the World Bank.

In other words, European taxpayers are subsidising the export of their own heavy industries. The sale of Sidex was seen to have helped Romania's bid for EU membership. What will be the price for the next wave of candidate countries? Are the Romanian and Bulgarian governments happy to pay for EU membership with the jobs of their steel industries? What other industries have similar deals hidden away?

If Mr Mittal is successful in his rumoured takeover of Corus/British Steel, no doubt they will follow MG Rover into Blair-sponsored oblivion.

(Applause)

The European Court of Auditors has, for good reason, refused to sign off the EU's accounts for the last 10 years and said, in its last report, that 95% of the EU’s budget was open to fraud. Yet every year this House just shrugs its shoulders, sighs and looks the other way. That is a shameful indictment of this institution and demonstrates how pitifully useless it really is.

Before we start debating ways to spend next year's money, I believe we should sort out the mess that has been left behind in previous years. Until the disgusting state of the EU’s finances has been sorted out, this House has no business debating further expenditure. I call upon you all, in good conscience, to reject the 2006 budget.

Perhaps that is why you have chosen Hampton Court for the summit tomorrow: Henry VIII was, after all, the first English eurosceptic. So what has happened since? Well, the Commission announced it was going to stop 68 new laws, and then yesterday we were told that a further 200 pieces of legislation would be repealed over the course of the next three years. So it all looks rather encouraging. However, the truth is that it is all window dressing; it is a game of smoke and mirrors and the clue was Commissioner Verheugen's comment that better regulation is not deregulation. The European Commission will not give up its power; there will be no real economic reforms.

Since 1497 the British Parliament has made 25 000 laws. Since you became the European Council President, no fewer than 2 500 legislative instruments have been passed. Unless you can find your way out of that maze at Hampton Court tomorrow, this will be your legacy and proof that Europe is not working!

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

If we are to give women full rights, they need to be liberated from cultures and from men. They need to be emancipated so that their lives can be equal and enriched and poverty can be eliminated. The question is, do the women here have the balls to carry out the job?

On Mr Blair's desk in Downing Street, there is a letter recommending that the UK Government set a time limit to complete the basic reform of the EU's accounting procedures so that they comply fully with international financial reporting standards. Simultaneously, the UK should declare that failure to do so within that time limit should signal the UK invoking the Vienna Convention on Treaties.

Meanwhile, the UK's GBP 1.25 million an hour should be diverted into an escrow account.