While the Counsel General is listing the historical precedent, let’s go back to the Magna Carta, which said that the laws of Wales should be applied in the lands of Wales. Let us recall that, therefore, the triggering of article 50 will have a very real impact on the domestic law of Wales. Therefore, I fully support his decision to apply to be part of the case in the Supreme Court. I think he’s done the correct step for the people of Wales, and for this Assembly as well, as a Parliament in Wales. And can I say how great it is that he’s done it before Scotland has? Because, usually, it turns out we do it after Scotland, but this time he was leading the way. Can he just confirm his reading, which I think is in his statement, and my interpretation of what the High Court had to say very clearly—that it was because this has an effect on domestic law that this should be a decision taken by Parliament? I would have thought that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament would want to defend that to the hilt, whether they are a Member of this Parliament or the Westminster Parliament now. It’s a very clearly worded decision, and it could be potentially done by a motion before Parliament rather than a Bill. I’m slightly surprised at Westminster’s rush to say this must be a Bill. Can he confirm that a motion, in his view, because he has to put in a detailed argument as part of this case now—will he be arguing that this could be done by a motion as well? Because I think it is very important that the MPs who called the referendum as a non-binding advisory referendum take cognisance of that and interpret the referendum in the best political way, but I don’t regard a Westminster referendum as binding on myself as an Assembly Member. So, I think we have to defend what’s best for Wales in this process. Certainly, what’s best for Wales is that, before article 50 is triggered, there’s proper parliamentary scrutiny of what the likely outcome of that triggering will be, and what its impact will be on our domestic legislation.

Can he just say a little more about the defence of the judiciary? He read out from the 2005 Act just shortly, which said that the Lord Chief Justice and officers and so forth were defenders. It was a bit difficult for the Lord Chief Justice to defend the judiciary on this occasion, as the Lord Chief Justice was one of the three judges that actually came to the decision—and a very good decision by a good Welshman as well. So, I think it is very important that we hear more from Westminster. Is he having discussions with people like Liz Truss, who should be saying a lot more about the independence of the judiciary? She should be explaining to people. Maybe there’s an educational aspect here. People need to understand why we have a separation of powers and why it is that the judiciary acts in this way to uphold the rule of law, because without it we will have the situation that we’re getting now today in America with people like Donald Trump saying that Mexican judges should be thrown out of office because they make judgments against his own political and commercial interests. That’s the kind of thing that we want to protect against, and that’s why it’s so important to have the independence of the judiciary upheld.

Finally, can he just say a little bit—because I think it’s important that we ask him this question—what the likely cost of this will be in being party to this decision, which I support? I think we need to know what the cost is, and what the likely implications are for that. Who is he likely to use in terms of engaging with an eminent QC in order to take this case forward?