No

Nigel Farage MEP, leader of the UK Independence Party

Many people were surprised when in June last year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that the reference to "free and undistorted competition" had been removed from the draft of the Lisbon Treaty. I was surprised to a certain degree. But the whole rhetoric surrounding Sarkozy, that he is a man of Thatcherite principles, is false. He is a protectionist on an extraordinary scale.

And that is the direction the Lisbon Treaty will be taking us in. Inefficient companies will once again be bailed out by governments quoting "full employment" at the European Commission. While this benefits the incumbents in the market, it is bad news for anyone trying to break into a market dominated by large companies or state monopolies. Small and medium-sized enterprises, the lifeblood of the British economy, already struggling under the weight of the legislative incontinence of Brussels, will see themselves suffocated by red tape and decisions based on politics, not economics.

The cost of business regulation has been estimated by the British Chamber of Commerce at a massive £40bn since 1998. Yet the Lisbon Treaty provides Brussels with enormous scope for further regulation.
The government was unable to answer the simple question, "What areas of life will the EU not be able to interfere in?", for the simple reason that they did not want to admit the truth. There is no area free from potential interference.

The Treaty even allows the European Court of Justice to apply the internal market rules to corporation tax, taking their one-size-fits-all approach on climate change, energy and the environment to new levels, which will be damaging for our economy.

In short, it paves the way for an even bigger, centralised bureaucracy totally unsuited to dealing with the challenges of globalisation, something I do not want this country to be a part of.

Yes

Roland Rudd, chairman, Business for New Europe

The debate around the Lisbon Treaty has focused mainly on whether the government should call a referendum. It has focused far less on the actual measures contained in the Treaty.

What is apparent is that the Lisbon Treaty is neither the monster depicted by many Eurosceptics, nor a panacea for the EU, as some Europhiles claim. Overall it is a step in the right direction, updating the rules of the game for an enlarged EU.

The current EU of 27 member states is the largest single market in the world, with a total value of £8.9trn. The Lisbon Treaty modernizes the machinery of the EU and its institutions that enforce the rules of the single market. From the point of view of British business, many of the reforms contained in the Treaty made good business sense, from streamlining the Commission and the merger of two foreign affairs posts to the continuity provided by a permanent President of the Council. There is even an increase in the UK's voting weight by some 45 per cent in the Council.

The Treaty does not pose any fundamental threat to British sovereignty. There are moves to majority voting in some areas, but this makes sense in an EU of 27 members. Any provisions that can heighten the prospect of economic reform or energy liberalization should be welcome. Majority voting is a pragmatic tool for the UK to achieve its interests, as Margaret Thatcher recognized in the Single European Act of 1985.

Above all, business would like to see the EU addressing and tackling the range of problems confronting it. These include energy policy, climate change, the single market, relations with Russia, EU budget reform and world trade. The longevity of the institutional reform debate is frustrating. The EU has been preoccupied for too long with voting weights and questions about the number of Commissioners. It is high time we moved from process to substance.