There are a number of questions there from the leader of the opposition. Yes, it was my demand that the BIC should meet before—I made this demand before the referendum itself, when the BIC met in Glasgow, that we should have an emergency BIC as soon as possible, as soon as practically possible, after the referendum result, and that’s exactly what happened. Different Governments are in different positions. The Isle of Man, for example, are in a position where they have a customs union with the UK, and, through that, a customs union with the EU. They will lose that customs union with the EU, but they cannot negotiate directly with the EU, so it means they’re reliant on the UK Government, potentially, to negotiate a different settlement for them compared to the UK. That’s one complexity that was identified at that point.

In terms of the advisory group, getting the invitation letters out and the people in place over the course of August is difficult—people are away. But the group itself will meet, as I say, this month. I’m confident we’ve got the right people in place. They’re not the same people as those dealing with the Wales Bill, many of whom are lawyers. We’ve a number of senior staff who have experience of working within Brussels, and the Permanent Secretary has been tasked with ensuring that we have a robust and experienced team in place.

The same challenge faces the UK Government. The UK Government has no experience of negotiating when it comes to free trade agreements or negotiating issues such as this with the EU. I know the UK Government itself is looking around to find people who can develop this expertise in the future.

In terms of what EU funds have been worth to us: roughly £650 million a year in total. We know that farming subsidies alone are £260 million. Now, it’s arguable, I suppose, that in the future that funding would have reduced if we hadn’t qualified for the highest level of structural funding, but, nevertheless, there is a substantial amount of money that we’re losing out on. If we look at farming subsidies, farming subsidies are not Barnettised. The worst imaginable outcome for Wales would be if farming subsidies were paid on the basis of Barnett. That would be a substantial cut in the amount of money that was available for farmers.

It’s issues like farming and fisheries that illustrate why we need a different approach to the constitutional architecture of the UK. We need agreement, for example, on animal health regimes. You can’t have four different animal health regimes. It makes no sense. That needs agreement. We need agreement on how farming subsidies might work across the UK. Is there ground for a certain amount of commonality of rules even though the systems are very different across the UK? When it comes to fisheries, would there be a common approach to fisheries management? That’s all devolved. And of course there’s the fundamental issue, which is that under no circumstances should an EU competence in a devolved area end up with the UK Government. It should transfer straight to the devolved Governments. We’ve made that point very, very clear.

The Scottish Government is in the same position as we are. Until we know the UK’s position it’s difficult to give absolute clarity on the way forward. But she asks the question ‘What is the difference between access to the single market and membership of the single market?’ In practical terms, I’m not sure there is much difference, but membership of the single market implies paying into it. It implies being bound by the rules of the single market and being bound by the directives of the European Union. That’s the EEA model, but that also involves free movement of people, and she will know, like I do, that that was a particularly controversial issue in the referendum campaign itself. At this moment in time, in theory, it points to a free trade agreement-style settlement, but again these things are not done within two years. Canada has an agreement with the EU that gives it access—pretty much 100 per cent access: 98 per cent access—to goods and services in terms of the European market. It’s not bound by European directives. It’s not bound by the rulings of the European court, but, of course, like anybody who wishes to export to the European Union, it is bound by the rules of the European Union if it wants to export there. There’s no avoiding that. So, for me, at this moment in time, it seems that the free trade agreement model, because of the issue of free movement of people, is the one that might provide a way forward, although that’s not easy to negotiate. Given the fact that there’s very little time to do this, and the UK doesn’t have the expertise, it’s easier in theory than it is in practice. In those circumstances we have to then consider issues like whether the EFTA model is more appropriate for us rather than the EEA model, which I suspect would fall foul of the views of many voters within Wales.

In terms of what this means for Wales and its relationship with other Governments in the UK, I’ve given examples in farming and fisheries of where there needs to be a new architecture, but, at the end of the day, we will lose out to the tune of £650 million. That money sits with the Treasury. The Treasury is not known for its generosity as far as Wales is concerned. They have refused for 37 years to reform the Barnett formula, which we know does not do Wales any favours. My concern is two things: firstly, that they’ll try and give us a sum of money, for example for farming subsidies, that reflects Barnett—that’s not good enough—and also they might try and interfere in the way in which funds are spent in Wales in the future, neither of which would be acceptable. Why is it still the case in the UK, for example, that the Treasury is judge and jury when there is a financial dispute between a devolved administration and the UK Government? The dispute resolution process—. If there’s a dispute between us and the Treasury, there’s a resolution process that ultimately ends up with the Treasury taking the decision. Now, the Australians have a grants commission, which gets around this problem. We need to look at ways where there’s greater fairness and consensus when it comes to financing the constituent nations of the UK and not ‘whatever the Treasury says goes’. That has to go in the future—particularly acute, of course, with Brexit.

From my perspective, I’m more than happy with the civil service team that’s in place, with the architecture that’s in place, and also with the views that we have already put forward about what is hugely important for Wales in any future negotiations. But we do have to have an understanding now on where the UK Government stands. Is the UK Government relaxed about tariffs, as David Davis is? He said it didn’t matter about tariffs because £2 billion would be raised in taxes—paid for by the consumer of course, because it’s the consumer that pays the tariff, not the business—and didn’t seem to be particularly worried about what that would mean. There are some, on the extreme end of economics, who take the view that we should simply have no tariff barriers at all, regardless of what any other market does, which, again, I don’t think would find favour with most of our people.

So these are all issues that will need to be explored over the course of the next months and years, but it’s clear to me that, before Christmas, we need to have an understanding from the UK Government on where it stands on the issue of funding, and particularly on the issue of market access. What is absolutely crucial for us is—call it membership or access—that our businesses can sell freely, without tariffs, their goods and services in the European single market. That, for us, is very much the bottom line.