Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I need to complete one or two remarks. President Sarkozy has said that a competition policy could emerge"““that will favour the emergence of European champions””." He is cutting something of a dash on the world scene at the moment, and is emerging as a dominant figure in European politics. I am afraid that he is showing no enthusiasm for the Anglo-Saxon model—despite a lot of enthusiasm for a Franco-Italian model. His view is wrong in terms of the best interests of the European Union, and it is certainly wrong in terms of the benefit of the United Kingdom. If the treaty had been in our interests and if it had been achieving our objectives, what would it have looked like? Such a treaty would have included provisions to bolster competition, not weaken it. Where are the Lisbon treaty's provisions to enable member states, not just the Commission, to propose the scrapping of unnecessary regulation? Such provisions do not exist. The treaty moves us away from the Anglo-Saxon model towards a more interventionist model. Its framework encourages more regulation, not less. Its objectives encourage more protectionism, not less. It is a reorientation of the EU away from the economic policies that create jobs and wealth, and towards the short-term protectionism that most people in this House oppose.