The next item therefore is the debate in the name of UKIP on the European Union. Before we start this debate, I’d like to remind Members of what I said last week regarding behaviour in the Chamber ahead of last week’s debate on the European Union. I very much hope that we will have a debate in the same spirit as we had last week. I call on Neil Hamilton to move the motion.

Motion NDM6030 Neil Hamilton

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that Wales would be stronger, safer and more prosperous if it were to leave the European Union.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. I think, to begin with, it would be fair to acknowledge that this referendum would not be taking place at all but for my party, and my party would not exist but for the upswell of feeling against the European Union, which has existed for quite some time.

When we joined the European Community, as it then was, in 1973, anybody would think, from what we’ve heard in the course of this campaign, that Britain was an isolationist country. In fact, we were already a member of an international organisation—the European Free Trade Association. The way that the EEC was sold to the British people all those years ago was merely as a kind of extension of the free trade area. But, of course, as we now know, and as anybody who had done any research about what we now call the European Union at that time would have known, it was always a political project to create a kind of united states of Europe. The British people never wanted political union. Indeed, Edward Heath, as Prime Minister, in 1973 made the astonishing claim that it involved no surrender of essential sovereignty. Well, the EU is a 1940s answer to a 1930s problem. Of course, nobody wants war again in Europe, but nobody can credibly, I think, advance the proposition that a resurgent Germany would have territorial designs upon its neighbours. So, the problem that the EU was created to resolve is totally irrelevant in the twenty-first century.

When we joined all those years ago, nobody expected that, at this date, we would have 28 countries in the EU, 19 of them in a single currency. Nobody would have believed that 500 million people would now have the right, automatically, to come to this country to live and to work. And nobody would have believed also, I think, that the EU would be able to tell us what sort of vacuum cleaners we would be allowed to buy in this country, nor that the Prime Minister of this country would have to spend days and days locked up in darkened rooms, asking the EU’s permission to change the rules on who is entitled to British welfare benefits.

So, the European Union that we’re in now is very different from the one that the British people expected to belong to as a result of joining all those years ago. Of course, in the 1970s, the United Kingdom was an economic basket case, and Europe had done much better economically in the post-war period. Now, the truth is the opposite. It’s the EU that is the economic basket case and Britain is, at least relatively speaking, resurgent. Since the beginning of this century, there has been almost no economic growth in the European Union. In the 30-odd years since 1980, the proportion of world trade accounted for by the EU has plummeted. It stood at 30 per cent in 1980. It’s now 15 per cent and rapidly going down. Unemployment throughout Europe is a scandal: 49 per cent youth unemployment in Greece, 45 per cent in Spain, 39 per cent in Italy, 30 per cent in Portugal and 25 per cent in France because of the eurozone. This is part of the utopian political project that was embarked upon all those years ago, and despite the devastation that it has caused to countries that have basically become less and less competitive with Germany, they still push on regardless of the cost in human suffering. Germany now has an endemic trade surplus in the EU, and all those other countries have an endemic trade deficit. The problem can only get worse, not better.

Now, what this referendum is about is democracy, not nationalism. And the problem is that the EU is unresponsive to popular opinion. We have one European commissioner; I think that a very small number of people could actually name him if you asked people in the street. We have 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers, and we elect 73 out of 751 Members of the European Parliament. There is no European demos; therefore, Europe can never be a democracy.

We have seen, in the course of the last few weeks, project fear rampant in the country. The uncertainties of making the decision tomorrow to leave the EU have been up in headlines. Very few people have spoken about the possibility that there is no vote tomorrow for the status quo. Whatever happens tomorrow, there will be change, and we can’t predict what that change will be in the European Union. The five presidents’ report, published not so long ago—a few months ago—forecasts that for at least the 19 countries in the eurozone, they’re going to move to further integration and centralisation. We cannot be immune to the consequences of that because we will be one of the nine countries out of 28 who will be on the outside of that centralising force. And the idea that Britain is going to be exempt from those forces is, of course, moonshine.

We are told that there will be a leap in the dark if we vote for national independence tomorrow. It’s curious to reflect on the history of that remark, because, of course, it was what Lord Derby said of Disraeli’s 1867 reform Bill, which gave the vote to the industrial working classes. That was the leap in the dark then. And, of course, it would be a leap in the dark in one sense tomorrow if we restore democracy to this country for exactly the same reason. And for exactly the same reason as the 1867 reform Act was a success, leaving the EU will be a success for Britain tomorrow.

The worst case scenario is that by leaving the single market, we would have a hurdle of an average of 3 to 4 per cent tariffs to jump over. The consequence on the other hand would be that—.

Can I intervene, sorry? If you’re talking about car components—and there are a lot of car components made in Wales—then that figure is actually 9.8 per cent, which is almost 10 per cent. That would make a lot of car component factories in Wales uncompetitive, which would mean jobs would be lost and that means there’d be less tax, less money to pay for our NHS and less money to pay for our services in Wales. I think it’s unacceptable.

I’m completely confident that there will be no tariffs on motor car components because—. [Interruption.] Well, let me just give you the facts. We import from Germany 820,000 vehicles a year and we have a deficit in motor car trade with Germany amounting to £10 billion a year. I don’t think that Chancellor Merkel, going into an election in Germany next year, is going to advance the cause of a trade war with Britain as the best way for her party to win. [Interruption.] Matthias Wissmann, the president of Germany’s automotive industry association says:

‘Keeping Britain in the EU is more significant than keeping Greece in the euro.’

They’re interested in selling German cars to us just as much as we are interested in selling British cars to them. German engineering exports to Britain are £7 billion a year. Car exports are £18 billion a year. So, I don’t think that there is going to be any trade war between Britain and Germany. I give way.

I thank the gentleman for giving way, but can I just ask him: what does he know that the Ford Europe managing director and my local plant director do not know, when they’ve written to their employees to highlight the very risks that he says are not just inconsequential, but do not even exist? What does he know that Toyota in Britain doesn’t know? What does he know that Rolls-Royce doesn’t know?

What do the experts know?

Yes, we do like experts. The future is inherently unpredictable—I know that—but common sense tells us that Germany will not want a trade war with Britain when it would hurt them far more than it hurts us [Interruption.] The Treasury—. There’s a limit to how many times I can give way.

The Treasury’s Armageddon forecast of just a few weeks ago forecast the worst that George Osborne could throw at us, and, although they were purporting to forecast what the state of the economy would be like in 2030, it would be nice if they could forecast the state of the economy next week. He’s never met a single one of his forecasts for economic growth or the Government deficit in the five years or so that he’s been the Chancellor. But he has purported to know, as an expert, what’s going to happen in the year 2030, and what that report says is that, if we are inside the EU, we can expect to get a 37 per cent growth in disposable income in the next 15 years or so. Out of the EU, it would be a 29 per cent growth in income.

So, there’s going to be no collapse of the economy. Even on the worst-case Treasury forecast scenario, it would be a growth of 29 per cent rather than 37 per cent. But, I pay no attention to these guesstimates at all, because it’s garbage in and garbage out with the computer. It all depends on the assumptions that you use. So, so much for David Cameron’s forecast that this would trash the economy. Actually, what he has done, of course, is to trash the truth. And, as he described himself six years ago, as the heir to Blair, I think, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.

What voting to leave the EU tomorrow will do is enable us to take back control of some of the most important policy decisions that affect this country, in particular, of course, control of our borders, because uncontrolled immigration, adding a city the size of Cardiff to the population of the UK each year, from population increases alone, has brought massive wage compression so that, for millions of people now, the minimum wage is the maximum wage. The Bank of England’s own research has shown that, for a 10 per cent increase in immigration, there’s a 2 per cent fall in the wages of semi-skilled and unskilled people.

Energy prices have been pushed up by crazy EU green energy schemes and green energy levies. We could probably halve the energy costs of Tata in Port Talbot if we had control of our own energy prices. We could take control of our own trade policy again. Like the United States, we could slap a 522 per cent levy on imports of cold-rolled steel from China, which are exported below cost on world markets, instead of the 24 per cent that the EU has proposed—

Will you take an intervention on steel?

I’m afraid I can’t take an intervention.

On steel.

He’s not taking an intervention. Carry on.

Again, we would be outside the whole state aid rules of the EU, which preclude us from giving help to industries such as the steel industry in Port Talbot.

We would be able to take control of our indirect taxes. The Labour Government, in 1997, was unable to abolish the VAT on domestic heating fuel, so we now have a 5 per cent charge on everybody’s heating bills, and that’s because the EU won’t allow us to have control of our own VAT. Similarly on tampons, that’s also been in the news recently, again, hasn’t it? So, there are so many different ways in which the necessities of life are taxed and we have no means of taking a decision to remove them.

As regards project fear, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, because this is an opportunity for Britain and an opportunity for Wales for the first time in 40 years, once again, to take charge of our own country. Project fear has concentrated in this Chamber upon structural funds to the Valleys and west Wales in particular; we heard that again this afternoon in questions. Well, over the course of the last six years, that amounted to about £3.5 billion. That’s £600 million a year on average. The net gain that would come to the British Treasury as a result of leaving the EU would be £10 billion—that would be three times that particular budget, in itself. We could do everything that is done at present by the EU, and a lot more, if only we restored our national independence. And, £3.5 billion in six years is a drop in the ocean by the £75 billion annual deficit that George Osborne has as a hole in the public accounts.

Similarly, on workers’ rights, you would think that we never had any workers’ rights in this country before we joined the EU, and yet the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1970, the Employment Protection Act in 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975 also.

So, what the other parties in this Chamber that are against Britain recovering its independence suffer from is a poverty of ambition. What we’re fighting here for is democracy in this country. In fact, because the Labour Party has concentrated on this workers’ rights issue, they must imply that there will never ever be a Labour Government in Britain again, and, with Jeremy Corbyn as a leader, who can blame them for thinking that? But the problem that they fail to identify is that it’s the British people, ultimately, who take these decisions, and, if a Government takes decisions of which they disapprove, under a democracy, you can get rid of them. In the EU, you can’t. If you don’t like the decisions of the European Commission, there is next to nothing that you can do to override them. So, it’s a pathetic lack of self-confidence and trust in the judgment of the people.

As for Plaid Cymru, it’s a most bizarre form of nationalism to want to send power not down further to the people, but further up and away from them. They’d rather be governed from Brussels than from Westminster, which is a most extraordinary and rather—[interruption.] Which is a rather extraordinary reflection for a nationalist party, because, if we left the EU, we could devolve the policies that they are responsible for from Brussels down here to Cardiff. We used to see graffiti daubed all over Wales when I was a boy—’Rhyddid i Gymru’—and their party, of course, doesn’t believe in freedom for Wales, because they believe that we should just be a region of the European Union.

Fundamentally, what both the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru believe is that the people of this country are not up to the job of running our own country for ourselves, and, tomorrow, the people of this country have the opportunity to make the decisive vote to restore our freedoms once again.

I’d like to try and address two of the main arguments of those who want us to walk away from the European Union. Now, whenever the benefits of membership are stressed, those people who want to abandon our European partners say, time and again, ‘This is not EU money, it’s our money we’re getting back’, and we’ve heard it again this afternoon. Of course, the UK makes a contribution to the EU; so we should. Those of us who believe in the EU, we believe in solidarity. We believe that the weakest part of Europe should be helped by the strongest parts, and Wales benefits from that. Of course, every club has a membership fee, and, in return for that, we get benefits, not least tariff-free access to the single market. If we withdraw from Europe, we’ll still have costs. We’d still have to pay for access to this market, albeit without any ability to influence its rules.

But the amount of money that we hand over to Brussels, to use the pejorative terms we’ve become inured to after 30 years of anti-European tabloid propaganda, and it’s chipped away—the amount of money is relatively small. The Treasury says we make a net contribution of £8.4 billion a year, which is less than 1 per cent of all Government spending. So, let’s put this in proportion. That’s the size of our contribution. That’s the size of the amount of money we hand over to Brussels: 1 per cent of all Government spending in the UK, enough to fund the NHS across the UK for 19 days a year.

Now, we’ve had, I think, a thoroughly dishonest and unpleasant referendum campaign, capped by the disgraceful and disgusting dog-whistle images of Nigel Farage standing in front of posters of refugees, appealing to the most base elements of people’s desperation, which has been brought on by austerity politics. I think that UKIP should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for the low level of politics they’ve brought into this campaign.

By listening to the people on the doorstep? Thank you.

Well, the people on the doorstep, David Rowlands, have genuine grievances—genuine grievances—and your gutter politics do nothing to bring solutions to the everyday problems—[Interruption.] If you want to make an intervention, stand up, but gabbling away like a goldfish doesn’t do anybody any good. People on the doorstep are genuinely fearful, and you are playing into the worst base elements, with none of the—

Respect the people on the doorstep, please.

Well, that wasn’t really worth waiting for, was it? [Laughter.] I do listen to the people on the doorstep. I have long, painful discussions with people on the doorstep explaining to them that the problems we face—and in constituencies like Llanelli, we face them in spades—of left-behind areas, because of the economic model we have in this country, none of that is going to be helped by pulling out of the EU.

Neil Hamilton has talked about car manufacturing this afternoon. In Llanelli we have a successful car-manufacturing plant, owned by a foreign company. We have a sister plant in another part of the EU. Are we honestly saying that, if we pull out, the medium- and long-term capital investment decisions to be made by the headquarters of that plant are going to favour a plant outside of the trading bloc with tariffs or inside of the trading bloc without tariffs? People don’t buy that. It’s dishonest politics that you’re sending. So, let’s be clear that the—

Will the Member give way?

Yes, indeed.

If the company he’s speaking to is Ford, is he not aware that Ford had a plant in this country—at least in the UK, which was in Southampton—that went instead, that closed down in Southampton and moved, to Turkey, paid for with European Union money, paid with our own taxpayers?

I appreciate he’s new to these parts, but Ford does not have a plant in Llanelli, and the forces you describe are global forces—global forces we are better equipped to deal with by being part of a strong trading bloc.

So, the disingenuous pledges of the ‘leave’ campaign of what they’d do with a supposed mountain of money are not worth the paper they are written on.

So, it brings me to the second of the arguments we’ve heard here from the right, and that’s not that the EU has secured peace in Europe over the last 70 years, but our membership of NATO. And, of course, the promise of American military protection has been crucial during the cold war, but peace is more than just the absence of war. Three generations of peace are built upon layers of confidence and understanding between peoples and crucially—crucially—the institutions to resolve differences. For my holiday reading I made my way through Christopher Clark’s mighty history of the run-up to the first world war, ‘The Sleepwalkers’. He points out that one of the reasons the economic turmoil of the eurozone crisis did not result in fighting, while the events of 1914 did, was the existence of powerful supranational institutions. I’m proud that, by being part of the EU, we have played a role in an alliance that has brought stability and prosperity to a continent with a history of instability. None of this is an accident. It’s the result of patient and painful integration: economic, democratic and, yes, bureaucratic. But give me directives over demagoguery any day.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Tomorrow every citizen over the age of 18 from every part of the UK gets to decide whether we remain as part of the European Union or whether we become independent once more. This is democracy. People can decide and they can choose for themselves. It will be of little surprise to anyone that I believe that Wales is better off out. My colleagues will be making the economic arguments, the security arguments and the political arguments for why Wales would be better off outside the EU.

I want to focus my comments today on the health arguments for leaving. Under European law, Governments and citizens of other European Economic Area countries and Switzerland reimburse the UK for the cost of the NHS providing treatment to people they are responsible for, just as the UK reimburses other EEA countries and Switzerland for the cost of providing treatment to people we are responsible for. However, figures obtained by the Labour MP, John Mann, show a huge deficit to the UK. The UK paid out a staggering £674 million to European countries for their health costs last year, but we only received £49 million in return. We are subsidising the healthcare of other EU countries. [Interruption.] We are.

Would you give way on that very point?

No, Huw, because I’m trying to get through something. Is that all right?

However, is it right for people living outside of the UK who pay no tax and national insurance to just continue to benefit from our free healthcare service, or should we insist that those living outside the UK should have health insurance? And the biggest threat to our NHS comes from EU directives. In 2011 the EU introduced a healthcare directive that Labour MPs warned would lead to the demise of the publicly-funded national health service. Negotiations are continuing on the EU’s proposed trade and investment partnership or TTIP deal with the USA, which could have a serious impact on the NHS and lead to the privatisation of our national health service.

David Rees rose—

‘The British Medical Journal’ recently warned that the risk to the NHS would be that it could never afford to return a service in-house once it was contracted out, and top QCs have warned that TTIP poses a real and serious risk to future UK Government decision making in respect of the NHS. This means, if we do remain in the EU, it will become harder and harder to keep the NHS in public hands. And Labour politicians from all levels and the trade unions have all attacked TTIP, yet those same politicians are arguing for us to remain as part of the EU.

The EU is incapable of reform. Faced with the possibility of Brexit, they couldn’t even agree the meagre changes sought by our timid Prime Minister. The EU dances to the tune of the big corporations and big money. This is clearly evident from the TTIP negotiations and the introduction of many laws that undermine the NHS. EU officials have imposed extensive expensive restrictions on the development of cancer drugs, with the clinical trials directive creating serious problems, delaying the testing of lifesaving drugs.

The European court will increasingly use the charter of fundamental rights to take more control of public health if we vote to stay. Remaining a member of the European Union is a clear and present danger to the very existence of our NHS. I say: don’t allow Brussels to take control of our NHS, don’t allow them to threaten patient safety, but, above all, don’t allow them to subject our NHS to the greed of the big US corporations, and secure the future of our NHS by voting ‘leave’ tomorrow. Diolch yn fawr.

A very long referendum campaign is, thankfully, due to come to an end, and I’m sure many will agree that the tone, the nature and the content of this campaign has not been a particularly good advertisement for democratic engagement. As the campaign enters its final hours, it appears that the ‘leave’ side in particular wish to focus on two primary areas, those of immigration and sovereignty. Sadly, on both issues, the ‘leave’ side have tried their best in not allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story. The facts on the issue of immigration have been well versed, and I do not wish to spend too much time repeating them this afternoon, save to say that I am of the firm belief that migration has made Wales richer in both a cultural and economic sense. There will always be a challenge in open, democratic societies in striking a balance between multiculturalism and integration, but the terms of such debate and discussion are only ever helpful when they’re conducted in a spirit of tolerance, rather than seeking to play up fears of the other. Perhaps one day such a context will exist.

I’d like to specifically address the question of sovereignty, which is often intentionally conflated with the principle of democracy by many Brexiteers. In listening carefully to those making the case for the reassertion of state sovereignty, one could be forgiven for thinking that we’re in the company of Thomas Cromwell, back all those centuries ago. Back then, there were arguments over whether Parliament’s sovereignty superseded holy scripture; now, it is parliamentary sovereignty versus EU regulation.

There was never a glorious time of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, even during those days of empire. In the twentieth century, following the devastation of war, international treaties creating fundamental rights for individuals and global conventions outlawing genocide were accepted as being universal and beyond the so-called sovereignty of any nation or any state. And, on this continent, blood soaked for much of the last century, nations decided to come together in a spirit of peace and solidarity. And, on this point, I want to emphasise that I find the suggestion that a UK withdrawal from the EU would lead to war to be crass and distasteful, but let no-one ever underestimate the fact that the European Union has laid the infrastructure for peace that makes war between its members impossible.

From a Welsh perspective, of course, we’re able to compare and contrast two very different unions of which we are members. The UK is based on the principle that the Westminster Parliament is supreme. We need no written constitution here to know that to be, indeed, the political reality. Here we have an unequal, uneven union built to endure, not to thrive. The EU, for all of its faults and its imperfections, and the challenges that it faces, has principles of subsidiarity and consensus built into its very anatomy. For those of us who love Wales, we must consider where power will lie in the event of a UK withdrawal from the European Union tomorrow. A ‘leave’ vote will amount to a transfer of functions from the European partnership to the hands of Whitehall, who will be free to do as they please to Welsh communities. A vote to leave means Europe leaving Wales behind in the shadows of the Palace of Westminster, occupied by an establishment drunk on a new self-confidence.

Will you give way?

I will not give way.

‘Remain’ results in our nation having the best possible chance of a national future of its own within a proper family of nations. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

It’s been a long campaign, and perhaps in many ways we’ll all be glad to see the back of it, whatever the outcome.

You can’t chew gum when you’re speaking to the National Assembly.

Okay. Apologies for that.

Carry on with your contribution.

Sorry, I wasn’t aware—

Disregard anything that was said to you from another place. Just carry on with your contribution.

Thank you, Llywydd. There was no disrespect intended.

I’m tempted to ask: where do you start on the EU? We’ve been bombarded with so many facts and figures from both sides, most of them of course conflicting with each other. There are so many aspects of this question to consider. Some of them we have already covered. It’s impossible to cover all of it in one speech, so I will confine myself to the issue that Labour Members frequently raise, of workers’ rights, which they are completely correct to do. But I have to point out that, in my opinion, there is no divinely ordained level of workers’ rights. We had workers’ rights legislation in the UK before we joined the EU, and we will still have it once we have left. The question is: what level of workers’ rights? [Interruption.] That is indeed the question, but the point is this: that it is a matter for an elected UK Government to decide on that, not an unelected bunch of EU bureaucrats.

If the electorate of the UK disagrees with the employment policies of an elected UK Government, they can always vote out the Government at the next election. That is what is known as democracy, and that is what we’ve had in this country for a long time, which is now being impeded by the EU. Of course, Labour Members have every chance to convince the UK electorate of the need for more a left-wing programme now that they have such a capable leader in Jeremy Corbyn. My own view on workers’ rights is that there are actually two versions. There is the version peddled by the Labour Members, which depends on regulations emanating from governments, and there is the version in the real world, which depends on the supply and demand of labour in the employment market. In this real-world scenario, wages and working conditions improve as demand for workers in an industry increases. Without a ready supply of alternative labour, bosses are forced to properly pay their workers, treat them reasonably well and even invest in their training. But, since 1975, when we last voted in a European referendum, more than 200 million workers have entered the EU labour market. [Interruption.] No. The inevitable effect has been to depress wages and worsen working conditions for British workers. More and more foreigners arrive and are used by big business as cheap labour. That is one important factor in why wages at the bottom end lag, and why we have the so-called ‘Amazon culture’. This reality is a nightmare for British workers.

Now, Labour has made great play about the people supporting the ‘leave’ campaign. Well, perhaps it is a motley crew of characters, but then it is inevitable in such a referendum that you do have strange bedfellows occurring. You remainers are in bed with David Cameron and George Osborne, the architects of austerity, as you keep reminding us. You are also in bed with Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, the International Monetary Fund—need I go on? On the leave side are not just Ukippers and Conservatives—[Interruption.]

Allow the Member to carry on, please.

Thank you, Llywydd. On the leave side are not just Ukippers and Conservatives. We also have Labour people like Frank Field, Gisela Stuart, John Mann and Dennis Skinner. Not enough has been made of the fact that David Owen, one of the most enthusiastic of Europhiles until recently, is now a convinced Brexiteer. Ultimately, you have to decide if you want to side with the workers or the bosses.

Here, to conclude, are two short interviews from ‘The Sunday Times’ a couple of years ago, which, taken together, I think illustrate the point fairly well. [Interruption.] Yes, well it has to be selective—there is a lot of material to draw on. Do you mind? What an asinine point.

Carry on. Carry on. Carry on.

First, a piece quoting Darren Hunt—

We’re looking forward to hearing the two interviews. Carry on.

Thank you. First, the piece quoting Darren Hunt, the boss of a construction company in Scunthorpe. These were his words: ‘It is proving very difficult to get British people in. It seems that people are no longer interested in earning their wages by the sweat of their brow. It is disappointing that we are having to go to Europe to get workers, but we have no option. The good thing about the eastern Europeans is that they have an old-fashioned approach and they’re not afraid of hard work. They don’t mind working long hours at weekends and they’re willing to get stuck in.’

So, that is the view of business. Here, to contrast with that, are the words of Eddie Sullivan, a 33-year-old trained chef: ‘I have worked from the day I was 16, but now it’s almost impossible to find a decent job here. My last job was part time in an electrical shop on a retail park. I was paid less than £60 gross for 10 hours a week. What jobs there are seem to go to immigrants. Locals don’t get a look in. Employers know that the foreigners will accept any job and never complain or question the pay, conditions’—[Interruption.]—No, sit down—

No. the Member is bringing his remarks to an end now.

[Continues.]—’and never complain or question the pay, conditions or hours.’

So, there you have it. Whose side are you on, you saviours of the working class? Are you on the side of the workers or the bosses? Thank you.

Tomorrow’s vote is the most important decision to be taken by Britain for a generation. It will set in stone the direction for our country, not just for this generation but for our children’s generation too. It is vitally important that everyone casting their vote takes this long view. This decision is not about the here and now, but it will shape the next 30 to 40 years of Britain’s future. This decision should not be a popularity contest between today’s politicians. It’s not Boris or Dave that matter, it’s our children and grandchildren. That is why everyone must think about that when they vote tomorrow.

This is why I want to address my remarks to my constituents in Torfaen in particular and to the people of Wales as a whole. In Torfaen, I want you to think hard about the prospects for your children and grandchildren. I’d like you to remember that, very often, in the last few years, it has been Brussels that has stood by us and our kids when Westminster turned its back and walked away. Please think about employment projects like Bridges into Work, which has seen £5.4 million of EU funds, providing opportunities and training for young people in Torfaen, or the EU funds helping to deliver accredited employment support locally, such as in the Cwmbran centre for young people.

If the vote is to leave the EU tomorrow, what will happen to this kind of sustained commitment to jobs, skills and regeneration? Do we want to rely on Farage, Gove or Boris Johnson? These are the people who turned their backs on us, gave us the bedroom tax and will slash investment as a matter of ideology. I know that many are worried about the pace of change in our communities, but voting to leave the EU will not address these worries. These arguments from the ‘leave’ campaign on immigration are nothing but snake oil.

If local workers are being undercut then the answer is a decent living wage—properly enforced and properly policed. If there is a shortage of skills, the answer is investment in training. When the housing situation is difficult, the answer is decent, affordable homes for everyone. The Valleys are not full—we’ve been bleeding people—our population has declined for generations. That has to stop if our communities are going to survive. We cannot steer our way through the problems we face by turning our back on the world and wishing it away. Change must come, but we may best shape that change if we retain a seat at the European table.

To the voters of Wales as a whole, I ask: what kind of Wales will you vote for tomorrow? Will it be one that embraces the £150 million on offer from Europe for the Valleys metro, or one that squanders that transformational investment? Will it be a Wales that utilises the £90 million on offer from Europe to complete the work on superfast broadband and take a connected Wales into the twenty-first century, or a Wales that remains firmly in the twentieth?

Will you take the long view for the sake of your children and grandchildren? Do you want them to feel committed to a free, democratic and stable Europe—free to travel, study and work within the biggest free economy on Earth, and benefit from the huge advantages that offers? Or, will you offer them uncertainty and a disconnected future? Will they inherit a Wales cut off from the biggest economy in the world, and will you gamble with their job prospects and prosperity? Tomorrow, remember why the EU was founded and why its future stability is crucial to the future our children and grandchildren will inherit. Remember that the EU is, first and foremost, about peace. UKIP will tell you that it has been NATO that has kept the peace in western Europe since 1945, and they deny the role of the EU. They are wrong. It is true that NATO has been indispensable in the military and political spheres, but the EU has been indispensable too, in the social, economic and cultural spheres. Military alliances matter, but they can’t deliver peace on their own. Europe in 1914 was awash with military alliances. Our children now live in a Europe where war between European democracies has become unthinkable, precisely because our EU has linked hands, not just militarily, but socially and economically too. That stability has given us 70 years of peace. Don’t deny our children and our grandchildren the best chance of another 70 years of the same.

If Britain votes to leave tomorrow, it will be a vote to cut off my constituency from desperately needed investment in jobs, skills and infrastructure, plunging us into economic uncertainty and making us poor. If Britain votes to leave tomorrow, then we destabilise the EU itself, and the world becomes a little more dangerous—maybe not immediately and maybe not for us, but for our children and grandchildren certainly. So, I call on everyone to take the long view. When you stand in that polling booth, even though the ballot is secret, you will not be alone. The futures of your children and your grandchildren will be standing right next to you. Don’t gamble with that future. Keep it safe.

Much has been made, particularly in this Chamber, of the benefits to Wales of so-called European money. We’ve heard a Member say today that the £10 billion we give to Europe is absolutely inconsequential. But, when a part of that comes back to Wales, they represent it as absolutely crucial to the economy of Wales. So, one thing doesn’t tie up with the other. So, can I seek to enlighten those who appear to be devoid of the ability to comprehend the very simple fact that there is no such thing as European money? The money Wales receives from Brussels, as with the rest of the UK, is British money coming back to us after Brussels has taken more than 50 per cent to subsidise projects across the whole of the European mainland. It therefore follows, to even the most fiscally inept, that if we retained the whole of this money within the UK, we would all benefit from the retention of that 50 per cent currently spent by Brussels Eurocrats. The lording of this European money is often followed by the spurious argument that, if we were to leave the UK, the British Parliament would not give Wales its fair share of the £50 bonus. [Interruption.] I call this a spurious argument because those who promulgate it must be suggesting that the 40 MPs who represent Wales in Westminster—most of whom are, of course, Labour MPs—are impotent in ensuring that Wales does not indeed get a fair share of this money. Further, are they suggesting that the four MEPs that we have in the European Parliament are a far more effective force than the 40 we send to Westminster?

Last, but by no means least—[Interruption.] I’m sorry, no. Last, but by no means least, let’s put this European money into its true perspective. Westminster’s willingness to invest in Wales is evidenced by the fact that Wales receives around £14.7 billion more from the UK Government than it pays in taxes. That’s every single year. This, of course, dwarfs the total amount of money Wales has received from Europe over the whole of the last 16 years. It follows that in any unbiased accurate analysis of facts, devoid of party politics, Wales would be better off out of this European superstate.

Can I finish by saying that in this matter of the European superstate, I find it incomprehensible that the two so-called socialist parties in this Chamber find themselves supporting big banks, big business, and a political elite against the interests of the working classes of Wales?

I think it is important to concentrate on facts and not project fear. We should be focusing on project—[Interruption.]

What about your project fear—world war three?

We should be—[Interruption.]

That’s not project fear?

I’ll take an intervention; it would be entertaining, no doubt. [Interruption.]

Carry on.

I’ll decide if the Member carries on, not you.

Sorry, Llywydd.

Carry on, Adam Price.

By the way, I have no objection to Members chewing gum—it works for Chris Coleman; maybe we should all start.

Look, I figure we should concentrate on the Welsh national interest, and particularly in terms of the economy, I have to say that I think many of us are right to be afraid. Because, you know, it’s a fact, isn’t it—the sectoral composition of the Welsh economy is different? We have a much bigger manufacturing sector, agriculture is more important to us, and that leads to a different pattern of trade. We’re one of the only parts of the UK that has a substantial trade surplus with the EU. As we’ve heard from the leader of UKIP, the UK has a massive trade deficit; not true for Wales. Wales per capita has the biggest trade surplus with the EU, and as a result of that it makes a critical positive contribution to the whole of our GDP. I mean, brush down your memories of your economics A-level; you know, Y = C + I + G + (X − M). Net exports: in Wales, we have a surplus, which is equivalent to about 10 per cent of our entire GDP in terms of trade in goods. We’re an export-sensitive economy. If that trade surplus goes down, it has a direct effect on our economic wealth and our prosperity. We’ve seen that already, actually, in 2014. We had a little glimpse of that; exports went down by 11 per cent. What happened? We had—. I won’t take any more interventions from you. What happened? What happened as a result of that? Our GVA growth went down in Wales, right, because there’s a direct relationship between our surplus in trade and our economy as a whole.

Now, nobody can know for certain what will happen to our economy as a result of Brexit. Four different scenarios have been offered by ‘leave’; we don’t know which one it’s going to be. Therein lies the rub. Uncertainty is toxic for business, for investment, particularly for manufacturing where the lead times necessary for investment projects are three to seven years. That’s the key. It’s not the issue of the terms of trade—you know, whether we’ll have to accept tariffs or whether there’ll be a compensating fall in terms of the exchange rate; it’s the uncertainty that will kill the Welsh economy as a result of this Brexit. There haven’t been many experiments when nations have walked away from a successful trading relationship, and there are good reasons why. Why would you? The only example that economists can find is what happened to the Finnish economy when it lost overnight as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union half of its exports to the Soviet Union—a 55 per cent collapse in investment as a result of that—actually, the deepest worst economic contraction to an industrialised country since the 1930s. That’s what could be facing Wales. That’s the economic argument; there are other arguments as well, which are closer to our sense of who we are.

When we sing ‘Hen Wlad fy Nhadau’ in Wales, we sing it as Welsh Europeans. You know, the Celts were the fathers of Europe. We came in, by the way, through Asia Minor, which is now known as Turkey. We created, yes, some of the glories of European civilisation along the way in our march west in La Tène and Hallstatt. Wales itself is a fusion of that Celtic inheritance and Roman civilisation. When we sing that other song, ‘Yma o Hyd’, we mean Europe too, because it contains within it that great creation myth of the Welsh nation that we were founded by Magnus Maximus—Macsen Wledig—a Roman legionary born in Galicia. That red dragon flag that we all waved earlier is a Roman military standard—’draco cocus’, in vulgar Latin that you, Neil Hamilton, and I learnt in Amman Valley—y ddraig goch. And that’s just two of the thousand words of Latin that there are in the Welsh language. We’re not just the original Britons of these islands, we’re the original Europeans too. You’re not just trying to cut us off from a continent, you’re cutting us off from our own history in an act of collective suicide.

If Brexit does happen against our own will, then maybe we can remind ourselves of the words of Raymond Williams:

‘I want the Welsh people—still a radical and cultured people—to defeat, override or bypass…England.’

If England does want to go off into some splendid isolation, then maybe we need a new campaign, ‘rejoin’, but this time as our own nation in Europe.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Well, there’s a motion before the National Assembly this afternoon that sets out three tests for a decision to take Wales out of the European Union, and, as has been undoubtedly demonstrated over the last hour, the motion fails on each one of those tests that they would have us accept. Wales would neither be stronger, safer and certainly not more prosperous if we were to leave the European Union, as this motion suggests.

Now, those of us who remember and were part of the campaign to establish this National Assembly will recall that, while we had no constitutional convention of the sort established in Scotland, we did have a very effective cross-party and cross-sectoral group that argued the case in the slogan that was used at the time—that a National Assembly would give Wales a stronger voice in Europe. And, thanks to the work of many Members here and many, many others across Wales, that proposition has been very directly delivered. Our language and our culture are stronger through our membership of the European Union. Our research base in science and in our universities is stronger because we are in the European Union. Our social protection for workers and consumers is stronger because of the safeguards guaranteed through the European Union.

Llywydd, Wales is safer too. The quality of our water is safer because of common action across the European Union. Food quality and security is safer because they are protected by European Union membership. Our membership of the European Union-wide networks on illegal drug use makes our citizens safer here in Wales. Our ability to deal with transnational crime and the modern scourge of terrorism, through the machinery of a European Union, makes us safer every single day. That’s the view of the most senior figures in the field—the head of MI5, the head of MI6, the head of the Government Communications Headquarters, five former NATO chiefs, the British head of Europol, and our allies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

Now, Llywydd, I’m not much given to quoting Conservative politicians, but we’ve not heard much from them this afternoon. So, let me make up, in a very small way, for that deficit by repeating and adapting what Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader at the Scottish Parliament, said yesterday: when it comes to a choice between listening to all those people and listening to those who proposed this motion, I’m going to vote for the experts every single day of the week and twice on Sundays, too. And they do that, and they say that for those reasons that Lynne Neagle expressed so eloquently here this afternoon—because membership of the European Union makes the future safer for our children and our grandchildren too.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way? I fear I must try to help him out as he’s made a reference to the Conservative group. I don’t speak for it; I speak only as an individual. But talking about the benefits of the European Union, the ‘leave’ side say we’ve given up essential sovereignty and it’s not worth the price, but if we’ve given up essential sovereignty, how on earth are we having a referendum tomorrow on membership?

Well, that’s an extremely good point that the Member makes. It plays into, I think, the third part of the proposition that we’re invited to sign up to this afternoon: that, somehow, we would be more prosperous if we were to leave the European Union; that we would be more prosperous without the 500 companies from other EU countries that have operations in Wales, providing more than 57,000 jobs; that we would be, somehow, more prosperous if the 70,000 people in Wales who have benefited from European Union funding helping them into work—if we didn’t have that available to us; and that, somehow, Welsh farming would be more prosperous without the €300 million of European funding that it has every year. The notion that Wales would be better off outside Europe is just a product of the voodoo economics that we’ve had outlined to us this afternoon. In its place, we’re offered a self-inflicted, do-it-yourself recession, an enormous act of economic folly, a retreat from the complex realities of the world we actually inhabit; and at best, a retreat to the sidelines and the sideshows of the real world, at worst, a retreat to the contemptible distortions of a poster that exploits the terror of children and the despair of their parents, caught up in events so far beyond their own responsibility or control.

So, Llywydd, there we have it: we want a Wales that is stronger, safer and more prosperous, and we know how to achieve it too. Wales benefits hugely from our membership of the European Union. Wales belongs in Europe, Wales needs to remain in Europe and, tomorrow, let’s vote to make sure that we do.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Unfortunately, I have only a minute to reply, so I can’t—I’ll be available afterwards to continue the discussion. But, I’m amazed at the other Members in this house who take a different view from me of the European Union. Their defeatism and their pessimism about the spirit and character of the Welsh people—that, somehow or other, they’re incapable of making their way in the world. As for the so-called experts that we’re supposed to rely on: are these the same experts who recommended that we joined the euro, the same experts who failed to predict the banking crisis and, in many cases, were responsible for it? Great people, aren’t they? I’m sure we’re all very happy to have their advice at this time.

Fundamentally, what this debate is about—it’s between democracy and bureaucracy. The people who are taking the decisions that affect our daily lives: are you going to elect them or not? If they take the wrong decisions, how do you get rid of them? That was the question that Tony Benn always used to ask when he met somebody with power: ‘Where did you get it from? How are you going to exercise it and if you make a mistake, how are we going to get rid of you?’ How do you get rid of the Commissioners in Brussels if they make a different set of decisions from the ones that they’re taking now that you actually happen to like? If you don’t like the decisions they’re taking then what you do? Then you’re stuck. With elected politicians, at least, you can, every so often, vote to get rid of them, and that’s what we’re going to do tomorrow: put the power back into the hands of the people.

The proposal therefore is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.