The next item on the agenda is a statement by the First Minister on EU transition. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Following the European referendum, I undertook to keep the Assembly informed of developments and also to provide regular opportunities for the Assembly to comment and to debate within this Chamber.

Mae’r Aelodau yn gwybod i mi fynd i gyfarfod llawn Cydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion yr wythnos diwethaf, a gynhaliwyd gan y Prif Weinidog yn Downing Street. Roedd fy nghymheiriaid yn yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn bresennol hefyd, wrth gwrs, ac roedd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid, Mark Drakeford, yno gyda mi hefyd. Lywydd, cyn i mi adrodd ar Gydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion, byddai’n ddefnyddiol rhoi rhywfaint o gyd-destun ar faterion cysylltiedig.

Rydym yn gwybod o ddatganiadau cynharach Prif Weinidog y DU fod Llywodraeth y DU yn bwriadu galw erthygl 50 i rym, gan sbarduno’r trafodaethau ymadael, a hynny heb fod yn hwyrach na diwedd mis Mawrth y flwyddyn nesaf. Cafwyd gwybod hefyd bod yr hyn a elwir y Bil diddymu mawr, a fydd, mewn gwirionedd, yn trosglwyddo cyfraith yr UE yn ddeddfwriaeth ddomestig pan fydd y DU yn ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, yn mynd rhagddo, er bod yna gwestiynau ynghylch sut y bydd yn gweithio yn y cyd-destun datganoledig. Yn fy marn i, mae’r dull yn synhwyrol yn fras, ond unwaith eto, ceir materion cymhleth, fel y dywedais, gan gynnwys y berthynas rhwng cyfraith Ewrop â materion datganoledig. Lle bo deddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd yn dod o fewn cymhwysedd datganoledig, ni yng Nghymru, wrth gwrs, fydd yn penderfynu maes o law pa rannau o gyfraith Ewrop y byddwn o bosibl yn dymuno eu cadw neu eu diddymu.

Lywydd, mae ein his-bwyllgor y Cabinet ar bontio Ewropeaidd yn cyfarfod yn rheolaidd a bydd yn adrodd i'r Cabinet llawn cyn y Nadolig. Y tu hwnt i hynny, mae Gweinidogion yn gweithio ar draws portffolios i geisio barn a thrafod materion fel bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn gallu adlewyrchu, yn y pen draw, amrywiaeth eang y safbwyntiau a geir ledled y wlad. Mae cyngor adnewyddu'r economi, tasglu’r Cymoedd, gweithgor Brexit addysg uwch a byrddau crwn ar gyfer rhanddeiliaid ar faterion yn ymwneud â’r amgylchedd ac amaethyddiaeth i gyd yn enghreifftiau o sut y mae'r Llywodraeth yn ysgogi trafodaeth a chyfraniadau ar faterion sy’n ymwneud ag ymadael â’r UE.

Fel y gŵyr yr Aelodau, mae ein grŵp cynghori ar Ewrop hefyd yn cyfrannu at yr ystyriaeth tymor canolig a thymor hwy ynglŷn â pha fath o Gymru yr ydym am fod y tu allan i'r UE, ac i gynllunio ar gyfer gwahanol sefyllfaoedd o ganlyniadau posibl i'r trafodaethau Brexit. Mae’r grŵp hwnnw yn dwyn ynghyd y farn ar draws y sbectrwm ac ystod o arbenigedd ac awdurdod o gymdeithas sifil. Rwy’n arbennig o ddiolchgar i aelodau'r grŵp hwn am roi o'u harbenigedd yn rhydd ac am y modd cydweithredol y maent yn cyfrannu at fudd cenedlaethol Cymru.

Lywydd, rwy’n dychwelyd yn awr at gydbwyllgor y gweinidogion yr wythnos diwethaf. Hwn oedd y cyfarfod cyntaf ers y refferendwm, pan oedd arweinwyr gwleidyddol o bob rhan o'r DU yn yr un ystafell ar yr un pryd. Os yw’n bosibl dod at unrhyw beth sy’n agos at gonsensws o ran safbwynt y DU, yna trwy’r fforwm hwn y bydd yn rhaid cytuno ar hynny. Rwyf wedi nodi’n glir fy marn y dylai Llywodraeth y DU geisio consensws o'r fath a chymeradwyaeth y Cynulliad a'r sefydliadau datganoledig eraill ar gyfer ei fframwaith trafod.

Lywydd, nodais ein blaenoriaethau ar gyfer Cymru, a bydd y rhain yn gyfarwydd i’r Aelodau yma. Roeddwn i’n glir mai mynediad rhydd a diymatal parhaus at y farchnad sengl yw ein blaenoriaeth absoliwt. Ni allwn gytuno â gosod tariffau neu rwystrau di-doll rhwng y DU a’n cymdogion Ewropeaidd. Byddai unrhyw symudiad i'r cyfeiriad hwn yn tanseilio’n aruthrol fuddiannau busnesau allforio Cymru ac ar unwaith yn dirywio'r hyn y mae Cymru yn ei gynnig yn y gystadleuaeth fyd-eang am fuddsoddiad uniongyrchol o dramor. Ni all ac ni allai marchnadoedd y tu hwnt i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd wneud iawn am y cwymp yn ein masnach Ewropeaidd. Mae o leiaf 40 y cant o'n hallforion yn mynd i Ewrop, ac mae'r holl ddata economaidd sydd ar gael yn dangos bod gan ddaearyddiaeth ran bendant i’w chwarae mewn llifoedd masnach ryngwladol. Lywydd, rydym yn uchelgeisiol yn fyd-eang ac rydym yn cefnogi ein busnesau lle bynnag yn y byd y maent yn dymuno masnachu, ond ni allwn gydgynllwynio ag unrhyw setliad sy'n tanseilio eu hallforion Ewropeaidd. Dywedaf eto: pleidleisiodd etholwyr Cymru i adael yr UE; ni wnaethant bleidleisio i ddifetha economi Cymru. Pe gallwn i, ar y pwynt hwn, ddyfynnu'r Aelod Rhun ap Iorwerth, a dywedodd fod pobl Cymru wedi pleidleisio i adael, nid gadael eu synhwyrau, ac roeddwn i’n meddwl bod honno’n llinell dda iawn. Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n crynhoi ein sefyllfa ar hyn o bryd.

Codais y mater hanfodol o ariannu ar gyfer Cymru ar ôl i’r DU ymadael. Fel ag y mae pethau, efallai y bydd y DU yn gadael yr UE yn ystod gwanwyn 2019. Y tu hwnt i’r dyddiad hwn, nid oes unrhyw ddarpariaeth yn y gyllideb ar gyfer ffermwyr neu gymunedau gwledig a dim arian ar gyfer datblygu economaidd rhanbarthol yn lle cronfeydd strwythurol. Bydd adolygiad o'r grant bloc yng ngoleuni gadael yr UE yn dod yn gynyddol bwysig ar gyfer sefydlogrwydd yn y misoedd i ddod.

Lywydd, rwyf wedi cydnabod o'r blaen bod pryder ynghylch ymfudo heb gyfyngiad o fewn yr UE yn rhan o'r hyn a gyfrannodd at y bleidlais i adael. Mae’n rhaid i hawliau dinasyddion yr UE sydd eisoes yn byw yma gael eu diogelu, ac ni fyddwn yn goddef unrhyw senoffobia na hiliaeth yng Nghymru. Mae ymfudwyr o'r UE yn helpu i gynnal economi Cymru, ac rydym yn rhagweld angen parhaus i recriwtio ar draws gwahanol sectorau o economi Cymru yn y blynyddoedd i ddod. Rydym yn aros am gynigion gan Lywodraeth y DU ynghylch sut y mae'n bwriadu ymdrin ag ymfudo a reolir ar ôl i ni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, a byddwn yn archwilio'r cynigion hynny yn ofalus. Ond rwy’n rhoi rhybudd i Lywodraeth y DU: ni fyddwn yn cytuno i unrhyw beth a fydd yn niweidio neu'n tanseilio economi Cymru.

Lywydd, fy mhwynt olaf o bwys oedd am ein pwerau fel sefydliad datganoledig. Pan fydd y DU yn gadael, bydd rheoliadau’r UE mewn meysydd polisi datganoledig yn cael eu codi a bydd Llywodraeth Cymru a'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn yn arfer rheolaeth lawn dros bolisïau sydd eisoes wedi'u datganoli i ni: amaethyddiaeth, yr amgylchedd a physgodfeydd, er enghraifft. Byddwn yn gwrthwynebu unrhyw ymgais—unrhyw ymgais—gan Lywodraeth y DU i adfachu pwerau i’w hun. Ni wnaeth pobl yng Nghymru bleidleisio am hynny. Rydym yn derbyn mai’r peth gorau fydd ymdrin â rhai materion ar sail y DU gyfan, mae hynny'n wir, ond dim ond trwy gytundeb rhynglywodraethol y gellid gwneud hynny, drwy gyfuno peth sofraniaeth, nid gorfodi. Mae gadael yr UE yn gofyn am ystyriaeth o’r newydd o ran sut y mae'r DU ei hun yn gweithredu ac mae llawer o waith i'w wneud yn y maes hwn.

Mae'n siomedig, ac yn niweidiol i hyder, nad yw Llywodraeth y DU, hyd yn hyn, wedi cynnig amlinelliad cydlynol o'i hymagwedd gyffredinol at ei thrafodaethau am yr UE. Nid oes llawer o esgusodion am beidio â gwneud hynny, ac nid yw’r gohirio, ac mae’n rhaid dweud, y negeseuon dryslyd a chymysg, yn helpu hygrededd y DU. Felly, mae angen i Lywodraeth y DU gael trefn ar bethau.

Lywydd, mae’r Prif Weinidog wedi cytuno y dylai cyfarfod llawn y cydbwyllgor gweinidogion ddigwydd yn amlach yn awr, ac rwy’n croesawu hynny. Rydym hefyd wedi cytuno ar ffurf newydd i’r cydbwyllgor gweinidogion, a elwir yn gydbwyllgor gweinidogion (trafodaethau Ewrop). Hwn fydd y fforwm ar gyfer y drafodaeth fanwl o safbwynt y DU. Byddwn yn bartner dibynadwy yn y broses hon a byddwn yn gweithredu gydag ewyllys da. Rydym eisiau’r hyn sydd orau i Gymru, ac mae gennym ddyletswydd i fynd ar drywydd y buddiant hwnnw gydag egni. Dyna'r union beth y byddwn yn ei wneud.

Lywydd, bydd yr Aelodau hefyd yn dymuno bod yn ymwybodol bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros yr Economi a Seilwaith wedi ysgrifennu at yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Fusnes, Ynni a Strategaeth Ddiwydiannol i ofyn am fwy o wybodaeth am y penderfyniad Nissan, a'r goblygiadau i fusnesau yng Nghymru.

Rydym erbyn hyn yn sefyll ar groesffordd i Gymru a'r DU, a bydd penderfyniadau a wneir nawr yn pennu ein dyfodol am ddegawdau i ddod. Mae'r Llywodraeth hon yn derbyn ac yn croesawu ein cyfrifoldeb, ond ni allwn weithio ar ein pen ein hun. Rydym yn gwerthfawrogi cyfraniadau gan bawb, a’n nod yw datblygu consensws pan fo hynny’n bosibl. Lywydd, byddaf, wrth gwrs, yn parhau i roi’r newyddion diweddaraf i’r Aelodau wrth i faterion ddatblygu.

I’d like to thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon and, in particular, the updating of Members in relation to the work the Welsh Government has undertaken with its various committees, and the Cabinet sub-committee that is advising the Cabinet. I do find some disappointment, though, in some of the language in this statement today, in particular the downbeat tone. The First Minister of Northern Ireland was also at the very meeting that the First Minister for Wales was at last Monday and these were her words:

‘The UK’s biggest economic opportunity for decades.’

That was what she was referring to when it came to Brexit. That is what we have to face. It is an opportunity. People have spoken, as of 23 June, and it is now for politicians of whatever colour to actually implement the wishes of the British people. It is important that the 48 per cent of people who voted to remain’s views are also taken into consideration, because that is a considerable number of individuals who expressed an opinion to keep our relationship with Europe as well. I’ve been very clear in any comment I have made that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to this, but the views of both sides need to be taken forward in an act of mutual co-operation, rather than just playing the petty politics that some of the language in this statement alludes to, such as—[Interruption.] Well, I appreciate that, in this Chamber, we’ll continue with the banter like this—but the language of confused and mixed messaging. It was the First Minister himself who came out with his six-point plan for where the Welsh Government stood, and before we knew it, the free movement of people was dropped from that six-point plan. It was the First Minister himself who, in early July, talked of the sooner that article 50 was invoked the better, and then that was changed by August to say that the Prime Minister’s approach was a very sensible approach. The only confusion, and the only mixed messaging, I would suggest, is from the First Minister himself and, indeed, the Welsh Government. And that is to be regretted—that it’s not more of a positive engagement when you look at the way that the Prime Minister has reached out to the devolved administrations, in particular, with reinventing and re-establishing the JMC, to make sure that the devolved voice is clearly heard around that table and, above all, making sure that the JMC meets around the whole of the United Kingdom, not just in London.

I would welcome the First Minister’s view as to how the JMC will progress in the next 12 months, 18 months or two years, because he is quite right to identify that this will be the key platform for taking forward the devolved Governments’ views in the negotiations, because the UK Government is the Government on point and is the Government making the negotiations. He, like I, met David Davis two weeks ago today. I found a Secretary of State who was fully engaged, who had a coherent strategy for the way forward and, above all, the announcements—[Interruption.] Well, again, you know, the First Minister and the Labour Party in particular seem to want to take a different view on every position just because the politics of it plays out for them. We have to enact the wishes of the Welsh people on 23 June, and those were cast very clearly: that the people of Wales wanted to recast their relationship with Europe.

Last week, we had the announcement about the Sunderland Nissan engine factory; we had economic growth figures. All positive news and yet still trying to put a dampener on the outcome of the referendum.

I would also like to ask the First Minister, in particular, on the paragraph where he talks about policies and the control of devolved areas. I too support him in his sentiments. I’m sure that every Member in this institution will support him. But there is an opportunity—as, in fairness, your statement touches on—where it says,

‘We accept that some issues will best be dealt with on a UK-wide basis, but this can only be done through intra-governmental agreement, through some pooling of sovereignty.’

So, I’d be grateful if he could enlarge on that particular reference—how he sees that type of relationship, that type of pooling of sovereignty. Importantly, he refers to the policy areas, and not necessarily the financial areas, because it doesn’t make reference in that particular paragraph or anywhere in the statement—. I read that very carefully because, obviously, the money side of the equation has traditionally been an important consideration in Welsh Government schemes, such as structural funding, higher education, agriculture and rural development. I do note that you’ve specifically referred to policy, not financial areas. So, is it the case that the First Minister is more receptive to more sharing of sovereignty in those particular areas so that the money can be best dovetailed into UK Government schemes and stretched further? I look forward to hearing what the answer is that comes from the First Minister.

He also uses the word ‘collude’, which I think is a very unfortunate turn of phrase when he’s talking about international development. Ninety of the 97 inward investment deals were delivered from UKTI last year. It is important that there is a strong relationship—[Interruption.] Those were UKTI’s own figures, First Minister. As we found in earlier questions in First Minister’s questions, you weren’t particularly good at identifying Mexico when it came to free trade, but I’m sure that UKTI have got their figures correct. So, I’d be grateful again—as to how the First Minister will be taking forward the Government’s position in promoting Wales on the UK platform when it comes to promoting Wales as a good, solid destination for inward investment. Again, another point that Arlene Foster made over the weekend was how she sees this as a unique opportunity to develop the offer—in her case, what Northern Ireland has to offer post Brexit—and it would be good to hear how the First Minister will be taking those issues forward.

I, too, join him in the points that he makes about racism and comments that have been made in Wales and, indeed, around the United Kingdom. There is no room at all in any civilised or developed society for such rhetoric, and we should be working across parties to make sure that that is driven out from every walk of life. But it is a fact that the First Minister has rowed back on the principle of the free movement of people, unless he wants to contradict me on that when he does respond to me. So, when he does talk about the importance of the free movement of goods and services, based on the principle that, under EU legislation, and EU understanding of the single market, it has to relate to people as well, how does he see the Welsh Government’s negotiating position assisting in making sure that there is access to the single market, given that you have given up on that tenet, that basic tenet, of free movement of people, which seems to be such a critical stumbling block? I have yet to hear a comprehensive argument coming from the First Minister as to why, from his original position, he has now moved to dropping that key caveat from the Welsh Government’s position.

I do wish the First Minister well. I wish the Welsh Government well in its deliberations, and in particular in its meetings with other devolved administrations and the UK Government. But we really do need to be working from the same hymn sheet on this. The next two years are going to be of critical importance to many businesses, many communities and many individuals the length and breadth of Wales. Wales voted to realign our relationship with Europe. You can’t get away from that. It is incumbent on politicians in all parties to work together, and I do regret the fact that the First Minister’s chosen not to accept the offer that I put to him on the twenty-fourth to work with him on this. I accept his position—he doesn’t want to take that offer up—but I do think that that is a matter of deep regret, because, together, politicians in this institution could achieve so much more when it comes to enhancing Wales’s position around the Brexit negotiation tables.

Nobody raises the issue of the UK not leaving the EU except those people who are Brexiters. There’s no question of the UK not leaving the EU. It’s going to happen. We know that. That argument has passed. That ship has sailed. It’s a question now of working out how this happens. All we know is that the people of Wales voted to leave the EU. We know no detail beyond that. We don’t really know what their position would be, for example, if there was a deal on the table that included some kind of partial free movement of people, as long as it involved access to the single market. We just don’t know. So, we are in a position of having to craft possibilities that are in the best interests of the people of Wales.

The reality, for me, is that tariff-free access to the single market is the single most important issue. That is the single most important issue. It is also right to say that that involves accepting, at least in part, the free movement of people. Well, if that is the case, then that has to be looked at, I’m afraid, because access to the single market is the most important issue. There are examples in other countries where there is a modification of the system of free movement. What we do know, what we can read into the result, I believe, in June, is that people weren’t happy with the current system of freedom of movement. Beyond that, we don’t know what their acceptance would be of any modification of that system.

I put forward a six-point plan in June. I still don’t have a plan from the UK Government. I still don’t know what their plan is, I still don’t know what their priorities are, and I still don’t know what the negotiating strategy is. Now, he met with David Davis. He may have said something different to him than he said to me, but every single question I put to David Davis was met with the answer, ‘It’ll be fine.’ I said, ‘What about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?’ ‘It’ll be fine.’ Well, it’s not fine, and Arlene Foster has the great problem now of having a situation where she will have a border with a country with a different immigration policy and that potentially is outside of the customs union as well. It is impossible not to have a hard border in those circumstances, and these are issues that, so far, have just been buried in the sand at UK level and will need to be resolved.

I think the Prime Minister wants to have a sensible approach to this. I think she does. I think this is the reason why she took the view she did before the referendum. But there are others around her who don’t. Liam Fox, Peter Lilley—these are people who have said, ‘What we need is a situation where service industries have access to other countries in order to allow their manufactured goods to come into the UK.’ That is a recipe to destroy UK manufacturing, and that is not what people voted for. For me, it’s hugely important that we’re in a position where we can access the European single market—that much is true—but I will not accept anything that would lead to manufacturing being undermined in Wales. He’s talked of free trade agreements—we must tread carefully there. Does he want a free trade agreement with New Zealand? Because what that would mean is the end of the quotas and the tariffs on lamb, with the free flow of lamb into the UK. So, we have to be very, very careful of what a free trade agreement actually means, and examine very carefully what the details are.

That is why it will take many, many years for free trade agreements to be negotiated. There’s no way that free trade agreements will be negotiated within two years—it’s impossible. The deal with Canada took seven years just to negotiate. Then there’s the question of agreement from the UK Parliament, from two regional parliaments in Belgium, member states—one of which has already said it would agree to nothing without co-sovereignty over Gibraltar. All these issues have to be resolved. None of this is easy. They have to be resolved, I know that, but to think that this is an easy option, that is far from the case.

In terms of devolved areas, well, let me give you one example of where it would make sense to have one coherent policy across GB: animal health. There’s no sense in having three different systems of animal health across Great Britain. And the reality is that, to me, it makes sense to have an agreement between the three Governments, with a common system—that clearly makes sense. There may be an argument of having a common framework for agriculture, so that there are no barriers erected within the UK to trade within the UK. That I can see as being something that would have merit.

He talks about money—under no circumstances would it be good for Welsh farming to see the current flow of money from Europe disappear into the Treasury. We get £260 million a year for farmers in Wales. We have a far greater share of the spend than Barnett would give us—a far greater spend. So, actually, we will be much, much worse off if we were to lose that share of the money. The worry I have is that, in 2020, we’ll be told, ‘You can have the money, Barnettised’. If you do that, it’s a massive cut in Welsh farming, and we would not be able to keep the current subsidy system going. For me, what we need is a guarantee that the current share of funding will continue into the future. If that’s done, then that will resolve the situation.

We have to make sure, of course, that we don’t end up in a situation where we have the powers, but not the money. And it’s hugely important, as we were told that there would be a Brexit bonus, that that is distributed fairly to the people of Wales. And in agriculture, that means not a Barnettised share—it actually means the kind of share that we get now.

Talks with UKTI—he is wrong about UKTI. We value the work that we do with UKTI—we have a good relationship with them; there is no conflict between us—but the major investment decisions that have come to Wales over the last few years have come through the sheer hard graft of Ministers and, indeed, of officials—Aston Martin, where I was yesterday, being one example of that. That was done entirely by Welsh Government Ministers. But we do work with UKTI. They have provided us with assistance in the past, and the relationship is good, and that’s going to continue in the future—that needn’t change.

But we have to understand that there are many, many issues that need to be resolved in a very, very short space of time. We’re talking about two and a half years to put in place a deal for the UK that will be of benefit to the UK. That is a hugely difficult task. At the very least, it needs the UK Government to be able to be in a position to understand where it wants to go at this stage. If it’s not at that stage yet, then how on earth will it be in a position to understand what the negotiations should look like over the two-year period of those negotiations? Now, from my perspective, I’m not starting from the perspective of looking to be publicly critical of the UK Government as it continues its negotiations. I would rather be in a position where we had an agreed way forward—I’d rather be in a position where we had an agreed way forward. But in March, I would like to see the UK Government having taken on board the views of the devolved Governments, and come to a position that can be agreed by the devolved Governments. On that basis, it makes perfect sense, then, to go into negotiations in March with a united front. But that is the challenge for the UK Government. It’s no good the UK Government saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do’, and not look for the views of the devolved Governments, or their agreement. If we’re going to get this right for the UK, we need as much agreement as possible, in order to make sure that, over the next two years, we don’t end up in the situation where we take a huge economic hit.

I thank the First Minister for his statement today. He and I, of course, will disagree and will have differing views in terms of the need for a more urgent and more clear position on the part of the Welsh Government in relation to our withdrawal from the European Union. But I’d like to focus my questions to him on what has been secured in the recent Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meeting.

In his statement, he mentioned the need to ensure, as far as possible, a UK-wide consensus. What is crucial in this respect is, of course, the appropriate mechanism for that to be achieved. He’s mentioned that the JMC will have a new body—the JMC (EN). Can he inform us if the UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be made accountable and answerable to that new JMC body, or will it be more of an advisory body for the civil service of the United Kingdom Government? Is it that body's role to seek either a shared UK position that he talks about, or will there be an ability through that JMC body to secure bespoke Brexit arrangements for each constituent part of the United Kingdom? I wonder if he can give us a sense of whether that body is going to be the basis for the UK Brexit negotiating position.

In his statement, he refers to the need for Wales's funding arrangements to be adjusted in order to mitigate and accommodate the fact that we will be withdrawing from the European Union. Of course, we on the Plaid Cymru benches agree with that, but can he tell us whether this is already a feature of his Government's negotiations with the British state on a new fiscal framework for Wales? Will that framework, from the outset, factor in the impact of Brexit, or will we need to renegotiate a new fiscal framework almost immediately on adopting the very first one?

He mentions in his statement the issue of migration, and I welcome his comments relating to full condemnation of xenophobia and racism, and his message, as well, of welcome to EU citizens who live here now and who contribute to our country, and Plaid Cymru will join him in condemning any racism and xenophobia that occurs. Has he had any further thoughts on the wider implications of a new UK immigration policy on the Welsh economy and public services specifically? I'm asking in particular relation to the possibility of Wales and the Welsh Government having the ability to issue Welsh work permits, so that, where there are shortages in skills or expertise in either the public or private sectors, his Government will be able to issue permanent and temporary work permits, so that we don't have a one-size-fits-all UK immigration system that might be to the detriment of Wales, but which may be, perhaps—call me a cynic—to the benefit of somewhere such as the City of London?

The First Minister has rightly highlighted the constitutional challenges that we have and those that will emerge over the coming period. The European repeal Bill, or, as some refer to it, the great repeal Bill, will be one of those challenges, particularly in relation to matters that are currently devolved. I've asked him previously whether he envisages a need for a Welsh European repeal Bill. I wonder if he can update us on whether or not he believes there will be a need, at one point or another, for a specific Welsh repeal Bill or even, dare I say it, a Welsh continuation Bill, so there is clarity, as far as it goes, in terms of previous European legislation and previous ECJ judgments as they relate to matters that are devolved in Welsh law, as he has referred to in his statement.

I welcome his very clear messages in terms of the constitution that there will be no tolerance on the part of the Welsh Government if it comes to attempted power grabs from the British state on matters that are devolved, and Plaid Cymru, of course, supports the very sensible approach for collaboration between the governments of these islands when it comes to matters where co-operation is essential—on agriculture, farming, and the environment, for example. Can he, therefore, take us a step further and share, perhaps, a vision for how he thinks that can be accommodated once we've left the European Union? Does he, for example, believe that the JMC (EN) should turn, on our withdrawal from the European Union, into a UK council of Ministers that is permanent in standing, that shares civil servants among all the devolved Governments and the central Government, so that there is a continuous, inter-governmental structure that can accommodate the differing needs of the United Kingdom and can facilitate co-operation, rather than the rather ad hoc and, I would argue, unacceptable way that we conduct inter-governmental relations at the moment?

Finally, he mentions the Nissan announcement. Did the Prime Minister have the courtesy to provide the First Minister and the other heads of government with any sort of heads-up in the JMC meeting that the Nissan announcement was imminent? Or does the First Minister have the impression from the nature of that announcement that the UK's approach, if we can call it an approach to Brexit, is sector by sector, rather than nation by nation? And is he able to clarify whether the promises made to Nissan will apply to car manufacturers here in Wales? Of course, as he's mentioned, it’s a vitally important industry here, worth £3 billion and supporting around 18,000 jobs. And finally, Llywydd, did he call the UK Government’s new Brexit hotline, perhaps to ask some of these questions, and, if so, does he feel that his call was important to them? [Laughter.]

I’ve not yet rung the hotline. I’d hope that it would give me more information than if I’d rung the speaking clock, but, so far, the person on the end of that of that hotline has simply said to me, ‘It’ll all be fine’. So, I’m not sure that the information is as detailed as it should be at this stage.

He raises many important points there. If I could deal with Nissan first, on Monday it was made clear that the UK Government was still considering a Brexit strategy that did include tariffs. I asked the Prime Minister to her face to rule out any strategy, any deal, that would involve tariffs, and she would not do so. Then we had the news that Nissan had made this announcement. Then we had the news that the UK Government was looking to use what I can only describe as its best endeavours to secure tariff-free access for the automotive industry.

I couldn’t disagree with that, but what about the other sectors? It seems to be a completely piecemeal approach without any kind of overarching strategy. What does this mean for Airbus? What does this mean for Tata? We don’t know. All we know is that a deal has been negotiated, apparently, for automotive without any money being involved. Now, I don’t believe that. I think it’s hugely important and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary has already written to the Secretary of State asking him to disclose the full details of the financial settlement. We need to know. This is a UK matter. If the UK Government has made a pledge that it will compensate for tariffs and it does that for every sector, we’ll end up paying more than we did when we were members of the EU, and paying companies rather than paying the EU. So, we don’t know. This smacks of an approach that is piecemeal and not one that is well thought through, and that needs to change. There needs to be a strategy here so that people understand where they’re going.

I welcome, of course, what the Prime Minister said before the Joint Ministerial Committee in terms of frequency of meetings, because that was all agreed in 2014. So, I’m not surprised that she reiterated what we’d all agreed in 2014 anyway. But yes, it is, of course, useful that the JMC plenary meets on a more regular basis and that the Prime Minister is at the JMC plenary.

He makes the point about a putative council of ministers. That is essential in my view, because we will need to have a mechanism where we can get agreement across the nations of the UK when it comes to looking to develop common frameworks. There is a precedent for this, because, when I was agriculture secretary back in 2000, 2001, we used to meet every month and agree the UK line at the Council of Ministers. That was seen as quite normal. So, this has happened in the past, and there is no reason why this shouldn’t happen in the future.

On the JMC European negotiations, it’s not an advisory body. Certainly, it was made very clear that this is not a body that is there for the UK Government to tell us what it is going to do without us having the ability to put our own view forward and to make sure we get an agreed way forward. So, it isn’t a sounding board and it isn’t a notice board of any kind; it is meant to be a proper forum for deciding the way forward.

In terms of the fiscal framework, everything is being looked at at the moment as part of the fiscal framework. But ultimately, of course, we know that there are still issues such as Barnett that don’t favour Wales. We know that there are unanswered questions in terms of what happens after 2020, and we don’t have answers to those questions yet.

He’s raised the interesting point about Welsh work permits. He’s raised it before with me. I think it’s an issue that needs to be looked at carefully, and it’s an issue that I have some interest in, to see how that would work at a UK level. I don’t share the view, if I’m honest, that it’s possible to have different arrangements for different constituent nations of the UK in terms of their relationship with the EU. I don’t see how that would work. If, for example, Scotland had a different form of access to the single market, that would inevitably mean different levels of customs and a border. I think it’s very difficult to have a member state with different arrangements within the member state, especially when that member state has countries that are attached to each other. It’s easy if you’re Greenland. It’s not as easy if you’re England, Scotland and Wales. What I want to see is a good deal for the whole of the UK and particularly, of course, a good deal for Wales.

I share his concern—and I made this point to the Prime Minister—that I don’t want to see the interests of the City of London being seen as paramount and more important than the interests of any other sector. We see on the hard right of the Conservative Party—it came from Peter Lilley, it has come from Liam Fox, it has come from Patrick Minford—that what we need is for service industries to have access to other markets, but manufacturing isn’t important. I don’t agree with that view, sorry, and I don’t think that those people who voted for Brexit thought that they were voting to see the manufacturing industry disappearing from Wales or the rest of the UK.

In terms of the repeal Bill, my understanding is that it will look to deal with the situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland simply to entrench current EU law in the respective nations. It will be entirely a matter for this Assembly then to decide which of those laws it wishes to keep or not. There would be nothing, to my mind, of course, to stop the Assembly, if it wanted, from actually implementing directives of the Commission, even if we were outside the Commission, if it was felt that that would be helpful for business. These are all issues that will need to be explored, but, again, the alleged great repeal Bill can’t be used as a mechanism for removing the powers of this Assembly and the people of Wales—that is not what the people of Wales voted for in two referendums.

There are many question I can’t answer because I don’t have answers from the UK Government, but it’s absolutely clear to me that the development of those answers has to happen soon. I’ve outlined what our position is as a Government. We need the UK Government to do the same, so that we can see where they are coming from. But this piecemeal approach of approaching first of all a company with a deal, then a sector with a deal, is not going to work. It’s absolutely crucial that we have a coherent approach that benefits all and all those people who live in the constituent nations of the UK.

Why is the First Minister still talking the language of Armageddon? This statement refers to a collapse in European trade being a possibility. Even if we don’t actually tie up any deal with the EU, it’s impossible for there to be a collapse in world trade. Can the First Minister confirm to me that, last year, the UK exported to the EU £135 billion in goods and £89 billion in services? That’s £110 billion less than they exported to us. It is massively in the interests of the EU to enter into a free trade agreement with us, because, if they don’t, they’ll be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The British Government does not, as I understand it, want to see tariffs imposed on exports between the EU and the UK on either side. It is only the EU Commission and other protectionist forces in the EU that are talking in terms of imposing tariffs, so what is the Welsh Government doing to try to influence the Governments inside the EU, apart from the UK, in favour of the free trade that, otherwise, we all want?

The average tariff that the EU imposes against third countries is only 1.1 per cent, and 75 per cent of all traded goods and services trade freely between the EU and the rest of the world on a zero tariff. So, isn’t it utterly inappropriate to talk in terms of a collapse of European trade between Britain and the EU being a possibility?

As regards the other parts of the statement, on the question of repatriation of powers, will the First Minister accept that UKIP is entirely in favour of a repatriation of powers, not just to Westminster but to Cardiff? This is a massive opportunity for us in this Assembly and, indeed, in the Welsh Government. We will recover control of agricultural policy, we will recover control of environmental policy and we will have, in our own hands, all sorts of levers over powers we don’t currently have to make the Welsh economy more competitive in future. Fundamentally, that is what it’s all about—it’s the opportunity to trade competitively not just with the EU, but the rest of the world, which is, after all, 85 per cent of the global economy.

I’ve read the minutes of the European advisory group meeting on 28 September, and it’s very interesting to look at who’s actually on this committee. There’s one person, as far as I can see, out of about two dozen, who’s got any practical business experience, and that’s Kevin Crofton. The others are all very worthy people, but they’re academics, policy wonks or politicians—superannuated or otherwise. What we should be doing, or what the Welsh Government should be doing, is taking advice from the people who are actually out there making goods and selling goods and services in the world, because that’s where the wealth of the Welsh economy comes from now and will come from in future. So, what he should be doing is asking them, ‘In what way can we use these new freedoms that we’ll be given and the new powers that we will get in the interests of the wealth creators of Wales and the jobs that depend upon them?’

I’m very pleased to see that the First Minister is talking in terms of managed migration, rather than, again, these sorts of Armageddon scenarios of building walls down the English channel to keep beastly foreigners out. Nobody is talking in those terms at all. He knows as well as everybody else in this Chamber that the Brexit debate was overwhelmingly dominated by the fears and resentments that had been created by unmanaged migration in the last 15 years. The biggest pro-Brexit votes were in the areas that Labour had relied upon over the last century for piling up the largest number of votes. Consequently, it would be to ignore the wishes not just of the British people, but the Welsh people if they were to resile from the obligation that is placed upon us all, I think, to ensure managed migration. But, of course, that’s going to involve people moving across borders. Of course, the Welsh economy does rely upon interchange, as every economy does—apart from closed systems like North Korea—for a healthy and growing economy. What matters is: what are the terms of that migration policy? So, what we don’t want is uncontrolled and unskilled immigration going across borders, because that is what has caused the principal problem, and the biggest sufferers of unmanaged immigration of that kind are those who are at the bottom of the income scale, because that tends to depress wages and hence depress living standards.

As regards the obscurities in the current negotiating stance of the UK Government, does the First Minister think it might be helpful if we were to invite David Davis and Liam Fox, perhaps, to come down to Cardiff to a Plenary session of this Assembly, in the same way we have Alun Cairns here from time to time, so that we can hear from the horse’s mouth what is in their minds and, insofar as we are unable to discern it, then expose them to the kind of questions that’s he’s obviously failed to elicit answers to in his own attempts to do so?

This is a great adventure that we’re all now embarked upon, whether we like it or not, whether we were in favour of the referendum result or not, but, as I said in my question earlier on, does the First Minister not accept that this is a great opportunity for us in Wales, which we’ve not had before, to take our destiny in our own hands? Politicians are elected by the people and can be dismissed by them if they don’t like what we do, unlike the Commission in Brussels and those who are currently employed in making policy for us who are not responsible, ultimately, to the people of this country or, indeed, any other country, and who are, as a result of that unaccountability, imposing upon the peoples of Europe a crown of thorns in the form of the eurozone, which is a massive engine of poverty and which is impoverishing an entire continent, and therefore restricting the export opportunities of Britain and Wales in particular. So, I ask the First Minister to embrace the future, embrace the opportunity that we have today. Don’t fear the future; it’s ours for the taking.

Again, we seem to be rearguing the referendum in June. There’s no point rearguing that; that is clear, and the result is clear in terms of what the direction is. But I do think we need a dose of reality here. If we had a free trade agreement with the US, nobody would want to jeopardise it—nobody. Nobody would be here saying, ‘What we want is to be in a situation where there might be barriers in place in trade between us and the US’. The EU is a much, much, much bigger market. It is bigger than America and Russia combined. Of course, the EU exports more in monetary value to the UK than the UK does to the EU, because it’s eight times bigger than the UK. In fact, percentage wise, we export about 40 per cent to the European market, and 8 per cent of European exports come into the UK. So, as a percentage, the UK is not a big market compared to other countries.

Now, the danger we must avoid is the kind of rhetoric we saw at the Conservative Party conference that can only unite countries in Europe together against us. That surely is not what we want to do. There are plenty of countries in Europe who don’t believe in ever-closer integration. They’re there—the Czech Republic is one of them, Denmark is one of them—and it’s right to say there are tensions within the EU, but there would be an irony if the EU became united against the UK because of the UK’s attitude. So, we’ve got to avoid that at all costs. It’s a sign of imperial arrogance to think that everyone’s going to fall at the UK’s feet; they’re not. The UK’s not a big trading block. It isn’t the EU, it isn’t America, it isn’t Russia, it isn’t India. It has to box clever when it comes to being able to sell its goods.

In terms of powers, he was almost making a case for independence for Wales at one point, I thought. I know his party has taken a long journey, but I didn’t think that the journey had been quite that long. We want to make sure that we get the right kind of advice as far as the future is concerned. I can say to him: I speak to companies who have invested in Wales and I speak to potential investors, and they all, without exception—without exception—say to me that they are uncertain about the future, because they don’t know what the UK’s relationship with Europe will be. Now, if you are Airbus, you are a very integrated European operation, you want to know if there will be any barriers between your operations in Broughton and Toulouse. They don’t know the answer to that yet. If you are Ford in Bridgend, you want to know whether a tariff will be imposed on the engines, every single one of which is exported—every single one—to Germany, and then another tariff imposed on the assembled car coming back in again. The answers aren’t there at the moment. Now, if those answers can be provided, I think he’s right, I think we can get to a situation where we can see a restoration of economic stability, but we don’t have those answers yet and these are not easy issues to resolve. We need to have that resolution.

To me, as I’ve said before, we get to a position where there are no tariffs, and that would be helpful. But, let’s not pretend that if we don’t have an agreement after two years things will be fine—WTO rules will be applied. The EU has no reason to be nice to the UK, if for no other reason other than to encourage others who would want to do the same thing. The reality is the EU can look for other markets elsewhere. There are many, many thousands of jobs in Wales that depend on us having unfettered access to the single market. Why would somebody come to the UK, rather than the EU, if they were two entirely separate markets? Why go to a market of 60 million and not a market of 500 million? There’s no way they’d come here. There are all those companies in the UK who are here—Nissan is one of them. Nissan is only in the UK so it can sell in the European market—that’s it. Ford is in the same position, Airbus is in the same position. If they cannot sell without a barrier—of course they can sell—without a barrier being in place, there is no reason for them to stay and there is no reason for them to come in the first place. Yes, there will be trade, but not at the same level as we’re seeing now. If we have a free trade agreement with another large trading block, we would not be arguing for a situation that might involve tariff barriers. It seems quite obvious to me and hopefully to others.

So, there is much work to be done. He talks of opportunities. There are some. State aid rules might not apply, as long as we don’t have rules imposed by Westminster instead. He is right to say that we can shape agriculture and fisheries, but without the money, we can’t have any of this. So, there needs to be a financial settlement at UK level that’s fair to all the countries, that enables us to use our powers effectively. That’s the uncertainty that we face at the moment.

We have to make sure that the current situation, which is uncertain—no question about that—is resolved as quickly as possible. At the heart of that is the need for the UK Government to declare, not its detailed negotiating strategy—I don’t expect them to have it at this stage, potentially, and I don’t expect them to tell us about it—but at least the general principles. What are the red lines? What is acceptable? What is not? We’re not at that stage yet; we need to be soon.

I appreciate the constraints of time so I’ll be quick and brief. First Minister, thank you for your statement. I very much appreciate the update we’ve received and I look forward to scrutinising you next week when you come to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on this particular issue.

I think it’s important today to highlight that manufacturing is not the price we’re going to pay for the financial sector in the south-east of England. It will be devastating for my constituency and my constituents, as you already know, with the issue of steel and other aspects. So, I won’t go any further on that point.

In relation to the great repeal Bill, I agree with Steffan Lewis: the ‘great’ Bill is perhaps the wrong term—it’s propaganda as he highlighted yesterday. The Scottish Parliament external affairs committee actually received a report from Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott on the possibility of a continuation Act, which puts into place the possibility—if we didn’t get the transfer of laws to this Assembly—of ensuring that the reaffirmation of European laws comes here and we put them into our laws. Now it’s possible they would be repealed by the UK Government, but it sets a statement if we’re finding that the great repeal Bill actually does try to claw back information. Will you look at this opportunity to see that, if the clawback is there, we have an alternative that places this institution at the heart of EU areas of devolved responsibility? I think it’s important that we do look at that.

Can you also highlight the question as to what discussions you’re having with other devolved administrations in relation to the representations to EU states and other EU partner bodies to ensure that our voice is heard in Europe? It is important that we can influence people in Europe to ensure that they listen to our concerns as well, so when they negotiate on behalf of the EU, they understand the position of the Welsh people, particularly here in Wales. I think that’s an important aspect.

In relation to the repeal Bill, have you had a chance to start looking at the possible implications following the Wales Bill? Because clearly the Wales Bill will have a different perspective now because we’ll have reserved powers in this situation. We’re already concerned about some of those issues and what impact that may have upon that to affect the constitution. And I would also look at whether you’ve had discussions. Because clearly, from your statement, the UK Government is all over the place and they haven’t got any detail at all. Have you had any discussions in relation to issues like procurement and the rules? On state aid, for example, I’m assuming there’ll be World Trade Organization state aid rules if we leave the EU without any consideration. So, we’ll still be applying state aid rules. Have you had discussions with other devolved nations as to how we will use that as a sort of collective to approach the important situations across the UK? Our needs are different to Scotland’s, Scotland’s needs are different to the north of England’s; it’s important that we get a collective view upon that.

I agree with that. The voice that isn’t heard here, of course, is the voice of the English regions. They don’t have a voice. London has a mayor and the reality is if you want to talk to the north-east of England or the south-west of England, there is no-one to talk to in reality. For them, of course, they’re in the position of having no real voice in these discussions, which is a matter that I regret.

At the heart of this, of course, is a fundamental disagreement as to what happens when powers come from Brussels onto these shores. Our argument is—and I think it’s the right argument—that they never go to Westminster; they just bypass Westminster and come straight to us. In Westminster, they seem to take a different approach, that somehow they come to Westminster and they will, in some way, pass those powers on. That is just simply wrong. That’s not what the devolution settlement actually shows, so there is a fundamental disagreement there at the moment.

I think it’s right to say that Scotland is in a different position. Scotland is publicly looking at another independence referendum; that’s a matter for the Scottish Government. Northern Ireland has very, very different views. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have different views on the future of Northern Ireland and its relationship with the EU. So, getting an agreed way forward in Northern Ireland is much trickier than it is elsewhere on these islands.

But the Wales Bill, of course, by creating a reserved-powers model, makes it, to my mind, easier to facilitate that flow of powers from Brussels straight to here, rather than those powers resting in Westminster and Westminster deciding then whether those powers should be passed on. That is one of the major discussions. That’s the great advantage to me of the reserved-powers model, because you’re not in a position where you’re having to argue constantly that a power should be conferred on you; in fact, the power will be transferred unless it’s specifically reserved. Now, at one point, the leader of the Conservatives was saying, he seemed to be suggesting that, somehow, the powers of this place should be curtailed, despite the fact that we’ve had two referendums—one on the establishment of this place and secondly on having primary law-making powers. Those referendums didn’t count in his mind. He’s been quiet since then, but I regret what he said at that point. The reality is that the people of Wales have voted to leave the EU. At no point were they asked the question: did they want to see powers leave Wales and go somewhere else? The UK Government must remember that. This is not to be an exercise in trying to centralise power in London, because that is of no use to anybody, given the fact that they claimed that power was centralised in Brussels. So, these are questions that will need to be resolved over the course of the next few months.

On the great repeal Bill, that has been presented simply as a Bill that would enshrine current EU law in the different nations, which is sensible, because nobody wants to see laws disappear by accident, and then it would be for the different legislatures to decide what approach they will take to each and every regulation and law as a result of that. If that’s all it is, then I can see the sense in it, but we must be careful to make sure that it doesn’t go further than the way it’s been presented.

And finally, Eluned Morgan.

I wonder if the First Minister would agree that, whilst some in this Chamber may be able to interpret the EU negotiations as a great adventure, others, who perhaps don’t live in huge houses in the middle of Wiltshire, may find that the massive increase that we’re already seeing in the cost of petrol, the increase we’re seeing in the cost of food, is already impacting on the poorest members of our society. And, does the First Minister not agree that, in fact, the EU project is not just an economic project, but that actually it’s a political project as well? Therefore, the negotiations won’t just be about whether they want to do a trade deal with us; they’ll be about a political negotiation and a belief in a project. Therefore, they may not actually want to sign deals that may even be in their economic interests, because they may want to preserve a political project, and therefore our power to negotiate is perhaps not as great as some in this Chamber may believe.

It’s a strong point to make, and it is not the case that it’s going to be easy to get agreement from 30 different bodies to a deal. It’s just not going to happen. Spain has got the UK over a barrel when it comes to Gibraltar; it’s seen its opportunity and it will argue for co-sovereignty. That’s one country that has to be persuaded amongst, well, 27 different countries, two regional Parliaments and two institutions. We know that there are other countries that just don’t see the UK as important in terms of their trade. Some countries will—Germany will, that’s probably fair to say. Other countries won’t see the UK as important at all, and persuading them that, somehow, they should sign up to a deal that they will see as favouring the UK unreasonably is going to be a major challenge. As I say, I think we should not kid ourselves that people think the UK is owed a living by other countries. That’s not the way they see it—not the way they see it. This is not the nineteenth century. We have to be realistic and get the best deal that we can for the UK, given the fact that the EU is eight times our size, and we have to make sure we get the best deal when dealing with a much larger organisation.

Another point I think it’s worth making: in terms of the complexity of all this, if you look at it, actually, in some ways, it’s more complex to see the UK leave the EU than it would have been for Scotland to become independent, because, at least in those circumstances, Scotland and the rest of the UK would still have been part of the EU. Actually, there would be no trade negotiations as part of that process, but there will be trade negotiations as part of this process. So, this is how complicated this is—in some ways, it’s more complicated than Scottish independence, and it’s a point that I have to make to Members. We must not think this is easy, we must not think the world owes us a living. We cannot appear arrogant over this, more than anything else, but we have to make it work. We have to make it work, and I think all Members in this Chamber understand that.

If we look at it sensibly, we need to have an idea now of what the general principles are the UK Government will want to follow. It won’t be good enough for the UK Government just to turn up and say, ‘This is what we’re going to do, like it or lump it.’ I will not be silent publicly if that happens, but I don’t want to start from a position of looking to undermine the UK Government’s position. But the UK Government cannot expect to demand the support of the devolved administrations without consulting the devolved administrations properly. The best scenario would be, in March, for all of the Governments of the UK to have reached a common negotiating position, to show that unity and show that strength. I don’t think the UK Government wants to go into a negotiation with the rest of the EU with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland publicly critical of the UK. It’s not where I’m starting from; I don’t want to be in that position. It’s hugely important then that we get to a point where the UK Government produces its hand, as we have done, and Scotland has done and as Northern Ireland has done, so that we can make a success of the next two years.

I thank the First Minister.