I suggest two solutions. We can go to tariff only, as proposed for 2006. In October 2004, EUR 230 per tonne was suggested, but that was too low for ACP and too high for dollar countries. However a common tariff is set up, it will disadvantage ACP countries, causing loss of production and unemployment. Already the Windward Isles report that 24 000 small producers have dropped to 7 000 under dollar-country pressure.

In many ACP countries bananas grow in terrain unsuitable for other crops, so unemployment grows massively. Will these people migrate, some to Europe adding to our 20 million unemployed, or will they take to crops like cocaine that will grow on the former banana plantations?

I suggest an alternative solution based on the repeated statements that we are supposed to be in an EU which retains its individual Member State status. Mr Barroso recently claimed that regulations might be cut. Combine the two: ditch the banana import scheme and make individual Member States sort themselves out with their own arrangements. After all, we are all grown-up democracies. EU countries would buy on the open market or support their former colonies just as they wish, without repercussions on the world market. The UK operated Commonwealth preference up to 1972 without great problems. If that sounds a little nostalgic, well, why not? We owe these former colonies. What is wrong with a little humanity in trying to maintain employment in the Third World? Rather that than the arid scratchings of the bureaucratic Brussels pen-pusher.

Is not the real problem of the implementation of the directive on occupational pension schemes that there is no political will for its implementation? In western Europe there is a serious demographic problem as the population grows ever older, with the birth rate continuing to fall in the leading industrial countries of the European Union. There is a major pensions crisis, which national governments are simply failing to address. In the case of final-salary schemes, as indeed with public service pensions, the concept is that young people pay for the old; that one generation supports the next.

It is not only the demographics that are against the old economies of western Europe, but also the so-called social model. This much prized social model seems to consist of 40% youth unemployment, welfare dependency and the break-up of the traditional family. Thanks to the economic absurdities of this place, as well as of national government, we cannot rely on the generational support system any longer.

Indeed, in the United Kingdom, it is politically even worse: there are over GBP 800 billion of unfunded public service pensions, with recruitment in the public sector out of control. Pension funds in the private sector have been taxed since 1977, taking over GBP 5.5 billion every year out of ordinary people's savings, whilst politicians enjoy privileged pensions at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer. Indeed, if public companies now fail to show pension liabilities in their accounts, the director would face prison, yet national government finance ministers flout the rules daily.

In my own constituency there is a company called Ballast Nedam which has simply abandoned its pensioners in a most disgraceful way and set up a new company to avoid its responsibilities. This is quite against the directive, which has failed to be implemented.

Is it not interesting how keen governments are to standardise car heaters, windscreen wipers and spirit bottles but, when real people need help, as usual the European Union is found wanting?

Well, this is year eleven; it is a shameful situation that cannot continue. The Court's latest report is another litany of the failings of European Commission bureaucracy. We were promised that a new computer system would close all the loopholes. The reality is that that the accounts will still be about as watertight as a colander.

The Members of this institution should feel a strong obligation to the taxpayers of Europe, for it is their money that is pouring through the holes of the colander. The British Government is under an obligation to spend taxpayers' money wisely and yet it goes on tamely writing the cheques to the European Union.

Make no mistake, I shall go on being the conscience of this institution. I shall keep pointing out what a disaster it is. My conscience is clear. Is yours, I ask? Incidentally, I look at the attendance of Members here today as an indication of the importance they attach to the handling of the taxpayers' money by the European Union. Enough said.

On top of the extension of powers over justice and home affairs, the establishment of EU visas, everything down to regulations on children's toys, I notice that on the budget you say that there must be adequate audit and control systems. That is pretty rich in the very week that the Court of Auditors is refusing to sign off your accounts for the eleventh year in a row.

You lost the Constitution and you are now treating the voters of France and Holland with contempt. Many French people will have felt that by voting 'no' they would have stopped the flow of European bureaucracy. However, just as their faith in the Maginot Line failed them in 1940, once again the enemies of free, independent states are coming in around the side and engulfing all.

You proved from this work programme that you have learned nothing and that you simply do not get it.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

Unfortunately Britain's big stick – its armed forces – is being merged into the euphemistically named European Defence Identity, i.e. a European army. If accomplished, this will prevent Britain from being able to embark on any independent military actions in the future. But once again, the EU assumes the attributes of a political state in order to address this problem and its pretensions are fully supported by a minister of Her Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, this Parliament continually calls on both France and Britain to decommission their independent nuclear deterrents. If they did so there would not be the big stick that might ultimately be needed in any negotiations with Iran.

The incompetent left-wing utopian dreamers who predominantly make up this deeply stupid and corrupt place do enough damage with their legislative efforts without meddling in defence issues. National governments might one day, eventually, be able to undo the EU's idiotic policies on agriculture, fishing, commerce and finance, but if the EU manages to take control of defence there may be consequences that cannot be undone.

All these reports are building blocks for a common European security and defence policy. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that a harmonised defence procurement policy appears in one of these reports, despite being an element of the failed European Constitution.

Britain's armed forces are being merged into a European army. Britain is sleep-walking towards the day when we will wake up and find that we have no independent military and defence capabilities. If the day ever dawns when Britain's national defences are controlled by the European Union, then God help us. Yes, may He help us, you bunch of buffoons.

The comments after Hampton Court were from those amazed that nothing happened. In fact it should be labelled the Hampton Court 'Maze'. The ARD TV station in Germany said that, after four months, nothing happened – absolutely nothing. The Polish media called it one of the most bizarre EU summits. In Italy, La Repubblica just called it 'embarrassed' and 'embarrassing'.

Mr Blair claimed it debated the things the public wanted it to debate, but the public does not want European policies for universities when the EU has no competence in education. Nor does it want things like nine separate missions around the world as part of an EU defence policy.

If Hampton Court proved anything, it was that vacuums are dangerous when filled with hot air from politicians. I propose that a blue metal plaque be placed on the wall at Hampton Court saying: 'On this spot on 27 October 2005 nothing happened' or, as they say in Yorkshire: 'Eee, you must be jokin''.

'If the Commission is not in a position to make such a statement at the end of Parliament’s vote on its proposal, it shall inform the President or the committee responsible as to when it will be in a position to do so; the proposal shall then be placed on the draft agenda of the first part-session thereafter.'

(Applause from the right)

I have already advised the chairman of the Merchant Navy Association – a captain in the Merchant Navy in his own right – that should this come into force, it should be disregarded and the European flag thrown overboard. What then? An attempt to board British merchant ships? I think not.

Why not pick an easy target, one that does not move about? Just a few minutes from here, a great Belgian flag was proudly flying this very day – and rightly so – under the Cinquantenaire. Why not tear that one down, replace it with the European flag and see what the Belgian people say?

Mr Blair started out with a sweeping agenda for reform of the common agricultural policy and cutting-back on overregulation. What exactly has he achieved? Nothing! The CAP is as unreformed as ever and rules, regulations and directives have increased, not decreased.

That is not to say that the British Presidency will not be significant. Mr Blair has been under intense pressure to surrender the British rebate of GBP 3 billion per annum in order to prevent the collapse of the EU budget talks for 2007 to 2013. In the tradition of British governments since 1972, it is almost certain that Mr Blair will surrender the British national interest – in this case the budget rebate – while no doubt still finding a way of trumpeting it as a triumph of diplomacy.

However, all of it makes me think, because just last weekend there was a Commonwealth conference. A third of the world's population was represented there and they were asking Mr Blair for a trade deal. But Mr Blair had to say there was nothing he could do, because the British do not have a voice – that is all sorted out by Mandelson over in Brussels, and he speaks for all 25 countries.

I firmly believe that if there was an independent British voice – and I am talking here about the world's third largest trading nation – at the WTO next month, it could actually speak up for the Third World. I hope Mr Blair crowns his Presidency by pulling Britain out of the common commercial policy and going in next month himself to speak at the WTO.

(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)

While I am on my feet, I should also like to point out that not a single word on EU fraud and corruption published last month has yet been challenged or refuted.