The Maastricht Treaty may have created citizenship in principle, but it is a classic example of theory being impossible to put into practice. For example, EU citizenship is impossible to renounce. I do not want it. I was not even asked before it was imposed upon me.

We now have clear proof of the desperation entering the thought processes of the federalists in this Parliament. It is their belief that 'a direct link between some aspect of the tax system and the financing of the European Union' would make EU citizenship more balanced. As any student of politics knows, linking something to a tax is the sure-fire way of condemning it to the dustbin of history.

I have said many times before that if the EU is the answer then the question must have been a stupid one. This report proves that beyond doubt.

The British rebate under point 78 is qualified as follows: 'During the period 2007-2013 the additional contribution from the UK shall not be higher than EUR 10.5 billion'. These two points seem to be in conflict and raise the question of whether the EUR 10.5 billion is subject to an automatic annual technical adjustment for inflation. If so, there will be a substantial extra cost.

British Parliament votes are expressed in current sterling values and are not subject to automatic adjustments for inflation. Exactly how much is the EU expecting the British taxpayer to pay, and is this legal?

I am also surprised that you are surprised that this is the sort of thing that happens when you tear down all the border controls. It is difficult to believe that it has actually taken anybody by surprise at all. It was surely inevitable.

As to the criminalisation of the client, which somebody suggested earlier, in the United Kingdom homosexuality was made legal in order to do away with what was then known as a 'blackmailer’s charter'. If you start to criminalise the client in these matters, you will find that the law of unintended consequence comes into play, something at which I am afraid this Parliament is all too adept.

Yesterday, a Parliament spokesman said that the protests had caused considerable damage, but what will be the damage in British ports if this directive is applied? New investment of over EUR 400 million by the management of my local ports of Felixstowe and Harwich may be jeopardised if they have to open the services to other companies. Our British system has worked extremely well for decades, so why should British ports be disrupted when, clearly, this form of legislation is aimed at certain ports on the continent?

It is said that there is a need for greater competition in this sector to promote growth and job creation, but if this directive is applied, at what expense? Dockers could lose their jobs, the security systems could break down and the safety issue would be jeopardised. I voted to reject the similar bill two years ago and, as a British Member, I am going to do the same again this week.

(Applause)

I recommend that a proper study of the effects of the new regime should be made without delay. Never let it be forgotten that our actions affect human beings out there in the real world, beyond our cloistered environment. It is a shameful indictment of this centralised bureaucratic form of government that it has taken so long to act, even then only under pressure from the WTO, and that so many people will suffer as a result.

I speak, of course, of the proposed EU Constitution which should be dead under Treaty law because of the 'no' votes in the French and Dutch referendums. Instead, however, the Constitution is being kept on a life-support machine until the inconvenience of democratic rejection can be overcome by some underhand means. Mr Tannock would do better to concern himself with the interests of those he was elected to represent rather than those who did not elect him.

But then the report goes on to say that EU legislation should be implemented equally across Member States and, in the case of non-compliance, rapid infringement procedures should be applied. We are immediately transported back into the world of one-size-fits-all EU legislation and penalties, which are guaranteed to strangle enterprise, initiative and business creation.

My own party pointed out during the British Presidency of 2005 that over 4 000 new regulations and legislative instruments were enacted, despite Mr Blair's rash promise to reduce overregulation.

If small and medium-sized businesses are to thrive in the EU, which is vital for job creation, then the simple answer is to reduce EU regulation, not increase it. Otherwise, one day the only way to own a small business in Europe will be to buy a big one and wait.

However, I should like to offer some constructive suggestions to improve the proceedings. Firstly, the presiding Presidents should ensure that speakers are kept to their allotted time: pro-EU speakers are given much more leeway to overrun than anti-EU speakers. Secondly, during the vote some presiding Presidents need to slow down a little. In that way we might have time to vote properly. At the same time, the Presidents might not make so many glaring mistakes in estimating the vote and there would be less call for electronic checks.

So carry on as best you can! Never mind the fact that 70% of your own people in Austria do not approve of the way you have been talking this morning. Never mind that two-thirds of the British people cannot see any benefit in remaining part of this sham Parliament. Never mind about the 'no' vote in France; never mind about the 'no' vote in Holland. From your lofty position your disdain for democracy will be noticed and, I am sure, approved of in many sections of this Parliament.

Meanwhile, on a more mundane level, this is becoming a very expensive club to belong to. Never mind that during the season of goodwill Mr Blair comes along and contributes so much money – GBP 7 billion – that his would-be successor now wishes to have a national patriotic 'Britain Day' day to try and undo the damage to the perception of the British people. We have a 63% increase in our budget over seven years, and the Working Time Directive is to be brought in, so we cannot even create that wealth.

What a wonderful agenda! And to all those who came from Eastern Europe in the hope of getting money, I am sorry, but the cheque is not in the post!

'No' in this case means sheer arrogance on the part of the Commission in presuming to go ahead with this project, when 70% of people in Austria do not want it to go ahead; when two-thirds of the population of Great Britain do not see any benefit in future membership of this sham Parliament; when the people of France have voted 'no'; and when the people of Holland have voted 'no'.

What part of 'no' does the Commission not understand? 'No' means that large proportions of the population of Europe do not want to continue with this pretence. We thought we were joining a common market and it has grown and grown and grown like Topsy until this final report, which is pushing us towards full political union. Well, it will all fall apart, without any doubt, because that is not what people thought they were voting for. I am glad that UKIP will not fail, because nothing can stop an idea whose time has come, and that means national freedom.

As a global trading nation, the United Kingdom handles more international freight than any other EU country and port management there is driven by free enterprise and market forces. There is no public ownership, no state subsidy, so expansion in the development of facilities and services in British ports depends on retaining the confidence of private investors and high standards of service and employment.

This directive will undermine confidence in those standards because it interferes in freely negotiated commercial contracts. It imposes controls that are neither necessary nor desirable. It seeks to solve problems in state-run ports that simply do not exist in Britain. The port authorities know, suppliers of services and facilities know, customers know: the only people who do not appear to know are those in the Commission. Even ship pilots’ proper concerns over safety have met with indifference. Do we really want novices piloting the biggest container ships in the world up narrow tidal waterways and trying to berth them safely?

Whenever the EU starts talking about creating a level playing field it reveals a fundamental ignorance of enterprise. British ports use their initiative and investors’ money to create competitive advantage: the very opposite of a level playing field. If passed, this directive will cost without yielding benefit and will slow down growth and confidence. The House should throw it out.

(Applause)