The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The next item on our agenda is the debate on ‘Securing Wales' Future’, transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe. I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Motion NDM6228 Jane Hutt, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that the UK Government has yet to set out a detailed plan for how the UK should withdraw from the European Union and its future relations with the rest of Europe.

2. Recognises the result of the referendum about the UK's membership of the European Union.

3. Welcomes the publication of the White Paper, Securing Wales' Future.

4. Endorses the priorities it identifies and the approach it describes.

5. Believes the UK Government should fully respect Wales' priorities, as set out in the White Paper, in the overall UK negotiating position and supports continuing efforts by the Welsh Government through the Joint Ministerial Committee to convince the UK Government of the merits of this approach.

6. Notes the UK Government's intention to seek to trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

7. Reaffirms the critical importance of the Sewel Convention, and believes that this should require the UK Government to consult and seek the approval of the devolved administrations on its negotiating position both before and during negotiations, and on any final agreements with the European Union.

8. Demands that any final deal must be developed with the best interests of the Welsh economy and society at heart, and not designed around narrow political interests.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion.

Ar 24 Ionawr, cyflwynais i'r Siambr ein Papur Gwyn, 'Sicrhau Dyfodol Cymru'. Mae'n gosod blaenoriaethau Cymru wrth inni nesáu at drafodaethau’r DU i ymadael â'r UE. Rwyf i wedi bod yn falch â’r gefnogaeth y mae Aelodau o wahanol bleidiau ac eraill yn ehangach wedi ei rhoi i'r papur hwnnw. Mae'n dangos pa mor llawn a chyflym yw’r agenda bod rhai datblygiadau eithaf arwyddocaol wedi digwydd yn y bythefnos ers hynny. Heb fod mewn trefn benodol, rydym ni wedi gweld adroddiad defnyddiol iawn gan y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol ar effaith gadael yr UE, dyfarniad gan y Goruchaf Lys na châi Llywodraeth y DU ddefnyddio uchelfraint frenhinol i alw erthygl 50 i rym, rydym ni wedi gweld cyfarfod Cydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion yma yng Nghaerdydd, cyflwyno Bil y DU i ganiatáu i Lywodraeth y DU danio erthygl 50, ymrwymiad annisgwyl gan y Prif Weinidog i Bapur Gwyn gan Lywodraeth y DU, ac, yn fuan wedi’r cyhoeddiad hwnnw, cyhoeddi’r Papur Gwyn hwnnw. Ond, yn anffodus, yr hyn yr ydym yn dal i aros amdano yw esboniad clir a manwl o beth yw safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU mewn gwirionedd. Mae Papur Gwyn Llywodraeth y DU yn gam bach i'r cyfeiriad hwnnw, ond rwy’n dal i ofni nad yw Llywodraeth y DU eto wedi llunio strategaeth gynhwysfawr ar gyfer sut i ymdrin â'r heriau sydd o'u blaenau a pha fath o daith y maen nhw’n dymuno mynd arni. Nid wyf wedi gweld llawer o dystiolaeth o roi sylw i'r materion hyn.

Fel erioed, mae pob datblygiad yn ateb rhai cwestiynau ac yn codi llawer o rai eraill, ond mae un sicrwydd cyson yn hyn: fel yr wyf wedi’i ddweud droeon ers 24 Mehefin, mae'r DU yn gadael yr UE; mae’r ddadl honno drosodd. Ond hoffwn bwysleisio eto mai fy swyddogaeth i yw arwain Llywodraeth Cymru a siarad â Llywodraeth y DU ar ran Cymru i sicrhau'r canlyniad gorau i bobl Cymru. Ar y cyfan, rwy'n hyderus iawn y bydd y safbwyntiau a'r egwyddorion a nodwyd gennym yn y Papur Gwyn bythefnos yn ôl yn parhau i fod yn berthnasol iawn drwy gydol y trafodaethau. Rydym wedi eu cyfleu mewn trafodaethau â Llywodraeth y DU, a byddwn yn parhau i wneud hynny. Heb fradychu cyfrinachedd, mae'n deg dweud bod Llywodraeth y DU, ac yn enwedig yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, wedi dweud yn glir eu bod yn rhannu llawer o'n hamcanion ni. Lywydd, rwy’n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn awr wedi cael cyfle i'w hystyried yn fanwl ac y byddan nhw’n eu gweld fel sail gadarn i gefnogi'r penderfyniad.

Felly, gadewch imi nodi ein blaenoriaethau unwaith eto, a byddaf yn cyfeirio at safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU ble y gallaf.

Yn gyntaf, gadewch imi ailadrodd ein prif flaenoriaeth economaidd. Mae angen inni gadw mynediad llawn a dilyffethair i’r farchnad sengl. Mae’r mynediad hwnnw’n allweddol i ddenu a chadw buddsoddiad, mae'n hanfodol i gynifer o swyddi—ac, yn arbennig, i gynifer o swyddi medrus iawn sy’n talu’n dda yma yng Nghymru —mae'n sylfaenol i'n dyfodol economaidd, felly pam y byddem ni eisiau cerdded i ffwrdd oddi wrthi?

Will you give way?

Yes.

Just on this point, the First Minister knows that the White Paper from Westminster talks about a ‘frictionless’ trade possible in goods and services. Does he have any idea what ‘frictionless’ means in that context?

No. I can guess that it means, I suppose, market access on the same terms as now, but that’s a guess. Nobody really knows what this phrase actually means. Indeed, to give the full phrase to the Chamber, the UK Government has said it

‘will prioritise securing the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services’ within the EU. Well, the key word there is ‘possible’. We’ll have to wait and see what that means. The White Paper fails to make clear how the UK Government will prioritise between its different, sometimes competing, objectives. Neither does the UK Government White Paper recognise that the UK stands to lose much more severely from the erection of any tariff or non-tariff barrier to trade than any one of our European partners. Of course, other EU countries have political imperatives, just as the UK does. As Reuters reported the other day, German car manufacturers are bracing themselves to adapt to the negative consequences for their business model of the introduction of tariffs on the UK.

Similarly, we believe that the UK should remain part of the customs union, at least for the time being. Two thirds of Welsh exports go to the EU, and participation in the customs union also enables free trade with more than 50 other countries beyond the EU. Consider, as well, the situation of the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey, which, whilst being outside of the EU but in the customs union, do not have control over foreign affairs and trade and so will be taken out of the customs union, potentially, without any say at all on their part, or without ever having been asked.

The UK Government fails to recognise the evidence that the strongest benefits from free trade come when the parties involved are geographically close and at similar levels of development. One study estimates that a series of free trade deals with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined would increase the UK’s overall trade by 3 per cent, but that’s only a tenth of the fall in our overall trade that would occur if we left the single market on World Trade Organization terms.

The UK Government objective of securing a mutually beneficial customs arrangement with the EU lacks clarity, and definitely smacks of having cake and eating it, nor is it clear what that means for the land border that the UK will have with the EU both in Ireland, and, indeed, with Spain.

What then of the big prize, for which the UK Government thinks we should give up our participation in the customs union: a new era of bilateral trade agreements with new and expanding markets? Now, we shouldn’t fool ourselves that it’ll be easy to reach good trade deals. It’s likely to take years, maybe many years, and new deals, particularly if our backs are against the wall because of mishandling the Brexit negotiations, may well make us easy prey for countries who want us to sign up for neoliberal trade deals that undermine employment and environmental standards.

Secondly, we’ve been clear in recognising that concerns about migration have been part of the reason why some people voted ‘leave’, and our position is clear: the right for EU citizens who are neither students nor economically self-sufficient to come to this country after Brexit must be linked explicitly to work. Alongside this, we need to see a much stronger commitment from the UK Government to implementing existing legislation that should protect workers, whether from Pembroke or Poznań, from being ripped off and exploited. Now, the UK Government White Paper is very sketchy on how it wants to handle this; it provides no clarity as to what controlling our borders actually means, except that the border will be open in terms of the land border with the EU. It doesn’t provide the unambiguous guarantee of the rights of EU citizens already living and working here that we have called for.

Thirdly, we need a proper recognition from the UK Government that Wales should continue to receive the funding it needs to implement regional and rural development policy based on our objective needs, and I expect that Members will be able to give me very firm backing on this point.

Fourthly, we need a thorough examination of the future of devolution in the UK, post Brexit. We expect the UK Government to respect the outcomes of the referenda that delivered devolution within the UK, as well as that on 23 June last year. They cannot pick and choose which referenda they want to respect. It’s quite clear that, in 2011, the people of Wales overwhelmingly decided that they wished to see full powers given to this Assembly in the areas that were devolved, without qualification. I welcome the commitment made to me by the Prime Minister last week that there will be no land grab on devolved competences, but the White Paper portrays a lack of understanding of the way Brexit will impact on devolved competences. So, talk of powers being repatriated from Brussels is highly misleading, as the Supreme Court’s already made clear, since the only impact of leaving the EU on devolved competences will be to remove restrictions that currently prevent the National Assembly legislating in contravention of EU law. So, to quote the court:

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.’

In other words, when powers return from Brussels, they come straight here. They do not rest a while, or indeed stop, in Whitehall.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: I have no intention whatsoever of recommending to this Assembly that we give legislative consent for any new legislative constraints that would effectively be a larcenous removal of powers from Cardiff to Westminster.

Fifthly, there are many benefits that flow from EU membership or are strengthened by them. They cover areas as diverse as employment protections, equalities, the rights of consumers and the enhancement of our environment. We will work to maintain these benefits in the exit negotiations. While I welcome the assurance in the UK Government’s White Paper that they will protect employment rights, it’s again unclear as to how this priority is compatible with other objectives, such as those of concluding new free trade agreements, which could either directly or indirectly lead to their watering down.

Sixthly, we stress the likely need for a period of transition, so that current arrangements can apply for a period after the UK actually leaves the EU. It’s vital that, as a principle, we recognise the need to manage that exit in a way that minimises disruption. I can’t see any good reason why the UK Government objects to that, but at the moment it seems to do so.

So, while in some respects we welcome the UK Government White Paper, in general it’s a bit of a disappointment. It basically says, ‘This is more complicated that we thought and we don’t have any answers yet.’ But those answers need to be found, and soon. This is not a game of poker in which we have a random hand in Texas hold ’em where the other side has no knowledge of the strength of that hand; it’s a grown-up discussion where each side can make a very decent assessment, based on data and evidence, of what is likely to be important to the other. At some point, before too long, the UK Government really will have to set out clearly what it wants, and perhaps, above all, to be clear about what trade-offs it’s willing to accept between its different asks. Whether we like it or not, the UK Government will have to put all its asks in one Brexit. [Laughter.] There has to be a pun in the middle of it.

Now, let me address the question of the amendment proposed by Plaid Cymru. I was, and remain, pleased that the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have jointly developed and endorsed our White Paper, and have jointly tabled the substantive motion before us. It’s essential that the National Assembly speaks up for Wales with a strong and united voice. I make clear: I will not endorse a Brexit that does not secure full and unfettered access to the single market, whether that be through the EFTA route or the EEA route or a bespoke arrangement. The UK Government, albeit in a different language, says that is a priority for them as well. But whether the UK Government can achieve this vital outcome, whilst perusing some of its other 11 objectives, is unclear. Personally, I’m sceptical. We wait to see. But it will only become clear once negotiations are under way. Only then can we be sure if the UK Government is really prepared to sacrifice our economy for ideology and abstract constitutional principles. If that proves to be the case, I and the Welsh Government will do whatever we can to prevent them doing that.

So I’m clear: while, like Plaid Cymru, I strongly endorse attempts in Westminster to amend the draft Bill, we cannot and should not try to block those negotiations beginning. That, after all, is what the referendum was about. The result has to be respected and that’s why the Labour group will be voting against the amendment.

So let me be clear in closing: we believe that our White Paper provides a more realistic and detailed position, based on evidence, than anything produced by the UK Government to date. We’ll continue to press the UK Government to take on board its messages, and to live up to the commitment they’ve made to seek consensus between themselves and the devolved administrations on the UK’s negotiation objectives. We want to work with the UK Government and all interests to find a way forward that’s good for Wales and good for the UK. Llywydd, we will continue to do just that.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the European Union.

2. Welcomes the UK Government’s 12 negotiating objectives for our withdrawal from the European Union and the publication of its White Paper.

3. Notes the publication of the Welsh Government’s White Paper.

4. Notes the UK Government’s intention to seek to trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

5. Recognises the Joint Ministerial Committee meeting held in Cardiff and welcomes the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to engage with the devolved administrations and secure the right deal for Wales and the United Kingdom.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. Although we agree that any final deal must be developed with the best interests of the Welsh economy and society at heart, this Welsh Government motion has been overtaken by events. I therefore move amendment 1 to replace this with a motion recognising the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the EU; welcoming the UK Government’s 12 negotiating objectives for our withdrawal from the EU and the publication of its White Paper; noting the publication of the Welsh Government’s White Paper; noting the UK Government’s intention to seek to trigger article 50 by the end of March; recognising the Joint Ministerial Committee meeting held in Cardiff and welcoming the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to engage with the devolved administrations and secure the right deal for Wales and the United Kingdom.

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of EU citizens who come to the UK. We will continue to attract the brightest and the best, allowing a sovereign UK to determine and meet the workforce needs of our economy and society, be they engineers, scientists, health professionals, carers or farm workers. But the voice of the people was clear; there must be control. [Interruption.] I’ll take one intervention.

Thank you for giving way, Mark. I say this in all reasonableness: if, of those two objectives, the one of trying to impose a cap on migration either from within the EU or externally conflicts with the idea of identifying and recruiting those skilled people who will drive our economy, our universities and our jobs, which one has the priority? Because I would think even the Prime Minister is starting to realise that the two are in conflict.

No, the first is the means to the second.

Although the Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for full and unfettered access to the EU single market, and although EU rules make this impossible after border control is restored to the UK, this is not inconsistent with the UK Government’s desire for a free trade deal without membership. The Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants a bespoke deal that works for the whole of the UK, embracing the most tariff and barrier-free trade possible with our European partners. In apparent recognition of the need for a bespoke deal, the First Minister told the external affairs committee yesterday that he was not suggesting that the Norwegian migration model was 100 per cent fit for the UK, but, rather, that there were other options. And, as the UK Government has said, ‘We have an open mind on how we do it.’

EU nationals can claim the right to permanent residence, without any conditions, if they’ve lived here legally for five years continuously. Whilst the UK remains in the EU, EU nationals here continue to have the same rights as now. The Prime Minister has also been clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals here, as do we, and she says the only circumstances that would not be possible are if UK citizens’ rights in other EU member states are not protected in return.

David Rees rose—

I haven’t got time.

I welcome the fact that Spain, for example, is saying that this is going to be a priority with negotiations, because they accept this needs to be dealt with also.

As the Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper states, cross-border collaboration in research and development, such as Horizon 2020, and international exchange programmes, such as ERASMUS+, should continue after the UK has left the EU. We therefore welcome reference in the UK Government White Paper to its close engagement with the science and research base, including a high-level stakeholder working group on EU exit, universities, research and innovation, to ensure that the UK builds on its strong global position in research and innovation excellence.

The UK Government White Paper also states that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be taken away from them and, indeed, that more decisions will be devolved. The Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for a UK framework to provide legal underpinning for effective regulation of issues such as environment, agriculture and fisheries, which are heavily governed by EU law.

The Welsh Conservatives support the exploration and creation of UK-wide frameworks in respect of these issues and others, including structural funds and higher education. These frameworks need to take into account all nations in the UK and safeguard the necessary funding and resources to ensure they can deliver for Wales.

The Welsh Conservatives are clear: as echoed by the Prime Minister, there will be no land grab on competencies that are under the current power of devolved administrations. This must respect the current devolved settlement as funding, schemes and initiatives are returned from the EU. The Welsh Conservatives have written to the Prime Minister, making the case for agriculture to be given priority in the exit negotiations. And speaking in Wales last week, the UK DEFRA Secretary expressed her determination to secure export markets for high-quality Welsh produce after we have left the EU.

As the Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech last month,

‘I want us to be a truly Global Britain—the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have the potential, talent and ambition to be. A great, global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united at home.

‘It’s not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world.’

She said:

‘As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states. It should give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets—and let European businesses do the same in Britain.

‘But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market. European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the ‘4 freedoms’ of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.’

She said:

‘So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible’—[Interruption.] You live in a dreamland. [Interruption]

‘Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement’—[Interruption.]

Let’s hear the Member.

‘That agreement may take in elements of current single market arrangements in certain areas—on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders—as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.’

But she respects, she said, the position taken by European leaders who have been clear about their position, just as she is clear about hers.

‘So an important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive free trade agreement.’

End of quote. After all, the UK is the EU’s biggest customer and a mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU—a single market—means, by definition, access to that single market.

Despite Welsh Government representations at the appeal into the High Court decision that Parliament must vote on the process to take the UK out of the EU, the Supreme Court made clear that the consent of the devolved administrations was not necessary before article 50 is triggered. The High Court has also since blocked a legal challenge arguing that Parliament must also approve the UK’s exit from the European Economic Area.

The people’s vote to leave the EU in last June’s referendum—including in Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf—must be respected. In the months that followed, however, we’ve suffered Labour and Plaid Cymru prophecies of doom and gloom day in, day out, rather than the words of confidence and optimism needed. [Interruption.] You will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It must be frustrating for a First Minister who has often sounded like the Private Frazer of Welsh politics, and for ‘Plaid Gremlin’ over there, who exist only to weaken and divide our island through the destruction of our UK—[Interruption.]—that the Bank of England has raised its forecast for the UK economy this year, with faster growth, lower unemployment and a more modest rise in inflation. The people of Britain, including Wales, have made the decision to leave the EU, and the UK Government is determined to get on with the job of delivering it. However, as every responsible Government knows, you don’t show your cards before negotiations begin.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne Wood.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Opposes the triggering of Article 50 without assurances from the UK Government that Wales’s participation in the European Single Market will be maintained, given the importance to Wales of single market participation.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I’m not quite sure how I can follow that. I move amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Since the vote to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, Plaid Cymru has prioritised the Welsh national interest. It will be of no surprise to anyone—[Interruption.] I’m happy to be a Welsh nationalist in comparison to your British nationalism, thank you very much. It will be of no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that my party continues to support participation in the European single market—something that is possible, either from inside or from outside the European Union. Now, we know that large free trade areas and agreements can come with dangers for societies, but the European single market has worked well for Wales. Participation in it has helped to generate highly skilled and highly paid jobs. Around 200,000 Welsh jobs are linked to that market. And crucially, the European single market is based on high standards, and it’s based on excellence, innovation and protection for the environment. On the one hand, it removes barriers to trade. And on the other, it improves and promotes quality. The European single market has some of the best consumer safety standards in the world. Many people will be familiar with the CE mark introduced by the European Commission to apply to goods throughout the European Economic Area, or EEA. From children’s toys through to the highest-quality manufactured goods, the CE mark means that a product has to meet the highest possible safety and environmental standards.

But the single market isn’t just about household goods. It’s also about household names: Airbus; Bridgend Ford; Siemens at Llanberis; Welsh lamb—90 per cent of our lamb exports; Halen Môn. All of these companies or sectors have either supported the single market or depend on it for their international exports. We’ve heard talk of these sectors having to find alternative markets, but why would we walk away from the biggest market in the world when it’s already on our doorsteps? We in Wales should think very carefully about our consumer rights, our exports, our environment, our workers’ rights as we consider what is being offered as an alternative.

Various Conservatives have outlined an alternative to staying in the single market. I’ve heard them say it will be something like Singapore. Well, I’ve got no issue with Singapore, but importing such a model to the UK would be unacceptable to us. We don’t want to see Wales dragged into an Anglo-American world of privatisation, where we would risk facing the end of social security and the end of the NHS. There would be a new, and probably worse, version of TTIP under the free trade agreements, and with it a downgrading of workers’ rights and protections for our environment. Welsh farmers would have to harmonise agricultural standards with the United States or see the opening up of our markets to more New Zealand lamb. These are prospects that Plaid Cymru will resist at every opportunity.

We also heard the Brexiteers offer a different alternative during the referendum campaign.

‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market,’ said Daniel Hannan of Vote Leave.

‘Only a madman would actually leave the market.’

These are not words I would choose, but they are the words of Owen Patterson. And

‘Would it be so bad to be like Norway?’

Have a guess who said that. Nigel Farage. A hard Brexit outside of the single market as well as the EU was not a question that was on the ballot paper. Couple that with the promise to invest hundreds of millions of pounds every week into public services, specifically the NHS, and a real need emerges to hold the ‘leave’ side to account for their promises and for their pledges. I represent a constituency that voted to leave. The Rhondda has lost GP surgeries. Some communities are depopulating and so are suffering from falling rolls, closing schools. Too many are struggling with social problems. Those promises of extra cash really resonated, and there are people who signed up to those pledges present in this Chamber today, and they’re also present in the UK Government.

Plaid Cymru has refused to give the UK Government a blank cheque to trigger article 50, and that's why we tabled our amendment today, as well as our amendment that was tabled last night in the House of Commons. Llywydd, we have a motion before us today that recognises the referendum result and sets out a detailed plan for Wales, and Plaid Cymru will support that motion, even if our amendment falls. The motion is right to point out that the UK Government failed to set out a detailed plan. This is part of our problem.

Will the Member give way?

We've now seen that the UK Government White Paper exists, but it's a document full of contradictions, and we still don't actually know what Brexit means. Yes.

Thank you very much. I think it is important, as you’ve said, that there is as much unity as possible across the Chamber on this motion and that we come together on behalf of the Welsh national interest. Having negotiated a joint motion with the Welsh Government, can you explain why you then tabled a separate motion signalling a different tactic to the old motion that you'd agreed? Is this more about your own internal political divisions, rather than the Welsh national interest?

We have no internal difficulties within Plaid Cymru on this. There's no mention of the triggering of article 50 in the White Paper. We are fully signed up to the White Paper, but we have our distinct position on the question of article 50, and that's why we've tabled this amendment today. But, as I’ve just said, we will be supporting the motion, even if our own amendment falls.

Now, the UK White Paper describes a trade situation that doesn't reflect Welsh circumstances. For example, the UK exports only 11 per cent of its goods to Germany, but for Wales, the figure is 24.8 per cent. Wales exports 13.7 per cent of its goods to France, but for the UK, the figure is only 6.5 per cent. I have no hesitation in endorsing the joint White Paper between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government as an accurate description of the Welsh national interest for the coming negotiations. I endorse both the policy priorities as well as the suggested approach. ‘Securing Wales' Future’ sets out a type of transition that would have the support of three of the main political parties in Wales. It ensures that Wales has a distinct position and a distinct platform for the JMC and other negotiations inside the UK. It sets out the closest and most positive relationship we could have with the European Union from outside, following Brexit. It identifies links with Ireland as being a strategic priority for our nation, and it outlines the critical areas of our society that need to be protected and defended from any disruption, and in particular in agriculture and rural Wales.

I also endorse the clarification and description in the White Paper on single market participation. The options for this are kept open, whether through membership of EFTA and participation in the EEA, or through a negotiated bespoke agreement, provided, of course, that such an agreement rules out tariffs and keeps our regulations compatible with those of the single market. Any deal that doesn't fulfil the conditions endorsed by the Welsh White Paper would be disadvantageous to Wales and would put our economy at risk.

Llywydd, Wales is in uncharted waters. The debate continues to evolve, and Plaid Cymru will contribute our ideas and our energy as the Brexit process unfolds. We'll continue to work with others where the national interest demands and where there’s common ground, just as Wales will work with the other devolved administrations. But Plaid Cymru remains wary of the UK Government. The UK Government is keen to say that it will listen to all of the devolved administrations. What remains to be seen is whether they actually intend to see this through or whether they just want to be seen to be inclusive and fair. Wales voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland the vote was different. Any approach to leaving the EU that rejects the aspirations of those devolved territories could lead to the end of the United Kingdom. Any approach that ignores that voice of Wales could discredit the UK Government and harm the Welsh relationship with the European Union. The joint White Paper sets out a way to avoid that damage and to preserve those important and beneficial European links whilst recognising the referendum result. It is in the Welsh national interest to endorse this White Paper today. Diolch yn fawr.

I appreciated the First Minister’s joke about not putting our eggs in one Brexit, but I fear comedy isn’t his strongest suit because he’s so melodramatic in these debates. The doom and gloom that comes out of his mouth is really quite extraordinary, and he is, I think, modelling himself more on Private Frazer in ‘Dad’s Army’—‘We’re doomed, we’re doomed’. His colleague across the Chamber is, in my view, modelling herself on the comic character from the radio show ‘ITMA’, Mona Lott, who was the lugubrious laundry woman—‘It’s being so cheerful as keeps me going’. Every silver lining has a cloud is the way they look at it, and this is the extraordinary thing: you’ve only got to read this document, the White Paper, to see where it’s coming from. Right at the start, almost:

‘replacing Single Market participation with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 to 10 per cent smaller than would otherwise’—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

We’re still waiting for your plan. Where is it?

Yes, well, I will come on to this in a moment in this speech. How on earth could moving to WTO rules from single market rules, where there would be an average tariff of less than 3.5 per cent, possibly produce a fall in the size of our national income by 10 per cent, given that our total exports to the EU are only 12 per cent of gross domestic product? This is absolutely economically illiterate, and the vacuity of this document is really beyond description. The idea that this is a plan, as the honourable lady says, is just absurd. Might I remind her that the Government has set out its broad negotiating position, and as the great German military strategist Helmut von Moltke once pointed out,

‘Kein Plan überlebt die erste Feindberührung’.

That shows my European credentials: ‘no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy’. So, there is no point in trying to have a meticulously thought-out plan for these negotiations. The Government’s broad position is the sensible one, which apparently there is agreement throughout this Assembly for—that what we want to achieve, in the words that the First Minister quoted, was frictionless trade between the EU: things much as they are now in terms of trade between us. It’s very much in the EU’s interest for that to happen. We had a £61 billion trade deficit with the EU in 2015. It’s massively more in their interests that in ours to preserve free trade between Britain and the rest of Europe. [Interruption.] I give way.

Thank you very much for giving way. Will you accept, though, that there is a specific Welsh context to our exit from the EU that this White Paper seeks to address, including that small point of Wales being a net exporter to the European Union?

Of course different markets and different products will be affected by exiting the EU unless we continue the trading arrangements that we have at the moment. That’s why it is of course right that the Welsh Government should feed into the negotiating process. But the Welsh Government is not interested, actually, in feeding into this negotiating process, because they start from the opposite end of the negotiation as far as the British Government is concerned. They say in this document that

‘any restrictions to the free movement of workers would severely impact Wales’ ability to access’ all sorts of things. And the bottom line for the First Minister, and I presume for Plaid Cymru as well, is that there must be free movement of workers throughout the European Union. Their ability should be unfettered to come to this country, not just to take up offers of work, but also to look for work. That is what free movement requires under the EEA rules. This is what happens in Norway, and Norway is of course part of the Schengen agreement as well. It would actually make things worse if we adopted the Norway model as recommended by the First Minister the other day.

You have to accept that the referendum result on 23 June was overwhelmingly motivated by fears on the part of the British public and the Welsh public on migration. If you ignore that, you ignore it at your peril. I give you that piece of free advice to take to heart. We don’t know whether the EU is going to do the sensible thing. The ball is in their court, not in ours. We’ve said what we want to do: we want to carry on trading with them in as free a way as we do at the moment.

In almost every single sector of our trade with the EU, Britain is heavily in surplus. Let’s take lamb, which the honourable lady mentioned in the course of her speech. The figures on agricultural products are very illuminating, actually. Our exports of lamb to the EU—I’ve only got the UK figures, I haven’t got Welsh figures. But, the UK figures are £392 million a year of imports of lamb from the EU and £302 million of exports. We have a deficit of £90 million a year in lamb.

We could afford, with the Brexit dividend—the £8 billion that we currently give to Brussels to spend on agriculture and other things in other parts of the EU—we could afford to buy lamb for every single person in this country and give it out for nothing, if we wanted to. That is what—. It’s an option that we, as elected legislators, will have. We will be responsible for our decisions in this place, and those at Westminster, and we will be accountable to the people. That is something that is, of course, lacking as a result of democratic deficit in the EU. I give way.

Thank you for giving way. Can you explain to me how giving lamb away produces a sustainable market for my hill farmers?

Dafydd Elis-Thomas’s hill farmers are the same as my hill farmers. I’m not actually—[Interruption.] Well, Mid and West Wales, if the honourable lady hasn’t discovered it, does include Dwyfor Meirionnydd and therefore—

Can I just say, at this point, that’s the third time you’ve referred to an honourable lady? Nobody is honourable in this Chamber. We are all equal. [Laughter.]

Llywydd, I think that is the quote of the decade, and I’m duly admonished.

Of course, that wasn’t a sensible suggestion, I was merely taking the argument to the absurd extreme. All I’m saying is that we will have the freedom to make rules and regulations to decide our internal policies for ourselves. If we choose to give some form of assistance to one sector rather than another, that is now within our decision-making power, not that of some opaque and unrecognisable collection of international civil servants based in Brussels, whose identities the overwhelming majority of people are unaware of. [Interruption.] I don’t think, Llywydd, I’ve got time to—I’ve given way three times already, which I think is pretty generous.

All I would say to Members in this debate is: of course, all change produces challenges and risks. It’s not as though there were no risks from remaining in the EU on the terms that we had for the last 40 years. During the course of 43 years, we’ve seen massive changes and convulsions occur in the lives of hill farmers, for example, or dairy producers, and so on and so forth. The world is always an unknown quantity, but what this opportunity gives us is the freedom to take decisions for ourselves as a country, by elected politicians accountable to the people on a regular basis, and we will have to answer for our decisions to them, which is something that doesn’t happen at the moment.

Given that we are in such substantial deficit in our trade with the EU, and in surplus with our trade with the rest of the world, being part of the customs union, in fact, would be a huge inhibition upon the freedoms that Brexit gives. Not only do I think that it would be foolish for us to sacrifice free trade in the EU, although that’s not within our power to control—that’s an EU decision, which perhaps the First Minister could assist the British Government in achieving by having contact with his socialist colleagues on the continent—. A united front on the part of all parties in these negotiations will be advantageous to us. But, as regards trade with the rest of the world, being in the customs union would mean it would be impossible for us to complete any form of trade agreement with the United States, which President Trump—whatever you think of him—seems anxious to bring about, and many other countries as well, whether it be Australia or New Zealand. India and China are there also to begin negotiations with. This is a massive opportunity. I don’t think it’s anything to fear. What is a nationalist party for after all, if not for the people who run their own nation to make the key decisions? What is nationalist about wanting to be run by opaque civil servants who live and work in Brussels, unaccountable to the Welsh people? That is the very opposite of a nationalist party in my view. But I think I must now conclude my remarks because although this is a two-hour debate I mustn’t take up more time than I have already. I don’t know whether we’ll have any more of these debates, but I’m sure the points will recur, nevertheless.

So, all I would say is that this is an opportunity for us, not a threat. It’s ours to make the best of or the worst of. If we go into the negotiations and if we go into the future with a spirit of pessimism—‘Oh, no, we can’t do this; the fifth-largest economy in the world is incapable of surviving on its own strengths’—then, of course, we will not get the best out of it. [Inaudible.] Rhun ap Iorwerth, from a sedentary position, ‘What about Wales?’ If he hasn’t noticed, Wales is part of the United Kingdom and is likely to remain so and, therefore, Wales must accept the reality that we are part of a wider negotiation. The idea that Scotland could be independent for these purposes is absurd and the preposterous suggestion of having a visa regime for Wales, as was mentioned earlier on is, of course, completely impractical. If—

You do need to wind up now.

Yes. And that is because as part of a unitary state, albeit with devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, we have to accept that the United Kingdom negotiates on behalf of the entire country. But Wales has everything to hope for, I think, and everything to gain from a positive attitude towards the Brexit negotiations and the opportunities that are available in the wider world.

When I spoke in this Chamber a few days after the referendum vote, I expressed huge disappointment at the result, but added that we had to accept the outcome and that’s still my position. And that is despite the fact that 62 per cent of voters in Merthyr Tydfil either voted to remain or didn’t vote at all. Unfortunately, the trade union ballot threshold didn’t apply in the referendum, so the simple majority voting on that day actually won. But given that clear divide of opinion, I will accept my responsibility to consider what is in the best interests of all my constituents. More than anything, what everyone needs is for the Government to put an end to the uncertainty. But seven months on that uncertainty remains.

Llywydd, I was saddened more than shocked by the result of the referendum, not because of what it meant to me personally, but because of what it would mean for people in one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom. For many, voting ‘leave’ was a desperate vote for change, a vote for something better from people who had suffered the decimation of their communities in the 1980s and the 1990s, resulting in decades of households without work, and finally those same communities becoming the victims of Tory-imposed austerity. But my real fear is that post Brexit it won’t bring the change that is craved and the very people that voted to leave are the very people who need the support of the EU provided for the most.

It also became clear that many people voted to leave on a range of things that they believed would result from us leaving the EU, including an end to immigration. But when I had conversations with many of these people, their concerns around immigration were not backed up by any personal experiences nor, indeed, were they able to say with any conviction how immigration had adversely affected them. However, when whipped up by the lies and the Goebbels-like propaganda from the right-wing media, immigrants became demonised as the cause of the day-to-day challenges that they faced. But, of course, the lies around immigration were far from the only ones. The whole ‘leave’ campaign was founded on lies and false promises, be it the promise of £350 million being reinvested in the NHS or the riches that would arise from new trade deals, which Ken Clarke referred to last week as ‘Alice in Wonderland fantasies’.

For me, however, the most distressing manifestation of the ‘leave’ vote has been the widespread increase in incidents of overt and public racism and the normalisation of such behaviour. Unfortunately, this has shown few signs of abating, and when you couple this with what we’ve witnessed from Donald Trump and the rise of the racist right in other parts of Europe, this must give us all cause for concern.

Just for a moment, can I focus on the personal impact on EU nationals caught up in the current uncertainty, both here and in Europe? I learnt recently about an EU national—a German—who came to the UK 40 years ago. He lives in Wales with his partner and he’s set up a small, successful arts-based programme. Despite what we’ve heard from the Conservative benches here, he, his wife and his son now face uncertainty as to whether they will be able to stay together, living in this country, and he believes that his family and others in similar situations are being used as bargaining chips in Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations. And what about UK citizens living in Europe? What happens to them? That still remains unknown.

If anyone still needs convincing about the urgency of this, then look at the figures from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that show that registration of European nursing staff in the UK has fallen by a staggering 90 per cent since the referendum.

So, as we move forward, what do we want from Brexit? Above all else, for the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, regardless of how they voted in the referendum, I want to see decent, affordable housing; improved services; business growth; sustainable and well-paid jobs; an end to poverty; and vibrant and thriving communities. EU funds have massively contributed to the transformation of my constituency over the years, and although people may not always have felt the direct benefits due to the impacts of austerity, there must be a replacement for the EU moneys that have been invested in communities like Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, because the environment that people live in is vital to their quality of life and goes hand in hand with other economic investments.

So, the UK Government must now address the uncertainties that remain; recognise the importance of EU funding, historically, to many parts of Wales; take on board the wishes and needs of devolved nations in any negotiations to ensure that our communities here in Wales do not lose out as a consequence of Brexit; and find a way of turning this into a positive way forward for those deprived areas that have been previously left behind. For these reasons, Llywydd, along with many others that I’ve not had time to cover today, I’m supporting both the motion and the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. It’s a little surreal, to be honest with you, because we have a motion before us that has been endorsed by the two parties that authored the agreement and then an amendment tabled that actually opposes the triggering of article 50 unless certain conditions are met. So, I do find that somewhat bizarre that there couldn’t be that agreement just on this simple motion that is before us, leave alone, maybe, some of the wider points in the document that is before us for debate today. I do note that the leader of Plaid Cymru has talked about promoting positive self-determination, which is another word—three words—for independence. If they’re to do that, how then can they sign up to the comments and the aspirations of the document that talks about the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom frameworks that would stem from when we leave the European Union? Because if you’re promoting positive self-determination, then, ultimately, why don’t you just use the word ‘independence’? I have asked the First Minister what exactly is the meaning of the word ‘participation’ when it comes to the single market, because that does seem to have been almost a compromise position that the two parties have arrived at, and doesn’t every—

Will the leader give way?

Go on.

Maybe I can be helpful to him. [Laughter.] My understanding of ‘self-determination’ is exactly that: a group of people recognised as a nation or a community could self-determine to remain in the status quo. On the other hand, self-determination might be something further. So, they’re not synonymous, in my humble opinion.

I’m not quite sure whether that’s what the leader of Plaid Cymru believes it to be, and I do believe that, obviously, the sentiment is about independence. But I did hear the rural affairs Secretary say that I do need some help in understanding these issues. I would ask the rural affairs Secretary, if she wishes to comment from a sedentary position, why doesn’t she now endorse UK agriculture, which, at the Royal Welsh Show, she chose to say that there was no such thing as UK agriculture? Why, if she has such an interest—[Interruption.] If she has such an interest in agriculture and supporting the agricultural industry in the country, why doesn’t she make progress on bovine TB, where Wales is at risk of being designated as ‘endemic’, an endemic country, which will close export markets to Wales? [Interruption.] That is a fact. Now, if you want to comment from a sedentary position, try and say something positive instead of looking for sensational headlines.

I have—[Interruption.] I have, when this document was published, actually looked at it and looked at some of the grounds that we could find common ground over, such as the framework that would support measures when we do leave the European Union on a UK basis; I think we could have reached agreement on that. The Chairman of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in responding to the statement that we had some two weeks ago, recognised that there are areas that, as an Assembly, we can work positively with.

The one area I think that does need a considerable piece of work done by this Assembly is the transition arrangements, because we look at the transition arrangements when it comes from Europe to the United Kingdom, but there is a huge piece of work to determine the transition arrangements within the United Kingdom itself so that we don’t get those disparities. Again, I believe that could have been a really positive bit of work that we could have undertaken and had common agreement over. But I have listened to the comments that have come forward, especially from the principal speaker from the Labour Party group talking about the residents of Merthyr Tydfil, and I do remind Members in this Chamber that it was a 71 per cent turnout at the referendum. Seventy-one per cent of voters—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention in a minute, but—[Interruption.] Well, if I could just finish the point I’m taking forward, then I’ll gladly take the intervention.

Seventy-one per cent of the voters of Wales participated in the referendum. That doesn’t mean that we should discount the 48/49 per cent of voters that voted to remain. That is a significant number in the equation. But there was a key decision made here in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom that needs to be respected, and the United Kingdom Government has taken that forward, and, actually, through the process of bringing forward the triggering of article 50, the debates in the House of Commons, the actual Supreme Court case—and, admittedly, they were taken to the Supreme Court, but that is what we live under; we live under the rule of law, that is people’s right to go there. But we as politicians need to enact what the people send us here to achieve, and Wales voted to come out.

What we need to be doing now is doing the best job possible to make sure that those negotiations benefit not just Wales, but the entire United Kingdom. And those issues are going to be complicated, those negotiations will be long, but, ultimately, there is a time frame: 730 days once article 50 is acted. Instead of some of the narrow views that have wanted to replicate the referendum result that happened on 23 June, let’s move beyond that. Let’s actually work some of these issues through.

I continue to make that offer from the Conservative benches, that we will work with any party and any individual to secure the best deal possible for Wales and the United Kingdom. But there was one issue that was very clear from the referendum that was held on 23 June, and that was the message that the people of the United Kingdom and Wales gave to politicians: to take back control. And that’s the instruction.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the first European Union debate I have spoken in at this Assembly. I certainly would not describe myself as a Europhile. I speak as someone who voted to stay in the European Union in the 2016 referendum, but, as a teenager in 1975, voted not to stay in. We have to acknowledge that the people of Wales voted to leave. We expected everyone to accept the result of the 1997 referendum on creating the Welsh Assembly, even though that vote was closer. We must accept that the majority of people in both Wales and Britain want us to leave the European Union.

We must remember that, whilst the majority is not always right, it is always the majority. It also seems to me, though, inconceivable that people do not want to continue trading with our largest export market. From the corn laws onwards, it’s only the rich who have benefitted from protectionism. One of the immediate effects of the referendum result has been a sharp drop in the value of the pound. Whilst there has been some fluctuation, the direction has been downwards and downwards. Devaluation, of course, does two things: it gives a short-term boost to the economy. If the response was long term, the series of post-war devaluations against the dollar would mean the British economy would be thriving. We’ve gone down from over $4 to the pound to just over $1.2. It also leads to price rises in imported goods such as oil, leading to increasing petrol prices, as people probably have seen when they put petrol in their cars at the petrol station.

It also leads to the increased cost of imported raw materials for manufacturing, and, thus, some of the benefits of devaluation end up being lost. At what value of the pound to the dollar will the Bank of England intervene to protect the currency? Will it let the pound go below parity with the euro or the American dollar? Both are likely, and probably likely this year, without any intervention. Whilst devaluation means—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Please.

I am grateful for the Member taking the intervention. Given the expansion in the UK economy, as highlighted by the Bank of England, and given the comments by most major economists that, actually, there will be a revaluation of the pound as we go further into the year, given the robustness of the UK economy, I’d like to understand what economic argument he is trying to advance or what economic experience he has to counter the arguments that both the Bank of England and most senior economists put forward on the state of the pound in this year.

Are these the same economists who were called experts we shouldn’t listen to? All I will say, if you look at the history of the pound, it was worth over $4 at the end of the second world war, it’s worth about $1.20 now, it’s moved downwards continually, and what I’m saying is that the likelihood is it’ll continue in that direction. Whilst the economy’s had that short-term bounce that devaluation gives us, the movement out of our main export market, if that happens, will have a severe effect on the British and Welsh economies.

Whilst devaluation means that small tariffs will not be insurmountable—though, if I listen to Andrew R.T. Davies, small tariffs will be insurmountable, but assuming that they’re not insurmountable—it is the non-tariff barriers, meeting European standards, and being checked that you do, which could involve partial dismantling so that items have to be rebuilt on arrival—. Why did I say that? Ask the Japanese, when they were exporting to France and the French did exactly that. They dismantled their goods and then they had to be reassembled again.

Many colleagues will have spoken, and I’m sure that more will, regarding the environmental benefits and employment benefits of the European Union, and the importance of keeping those benefits. I concur entirely with that. We should not be losing the benefits we’ve got.

I’ve got another concern about people who want free trade deals with us. It’s almost like picking off the weakest. New Zealand want to undercut Welsh lamb, the USA and others want to undercut Welsh beef, China wants to undercut Welsh manufacturing, including steel—do you think the Welsh manufacturing industry would survive a free trade deal with China and China’s capacity to dump goods on any country in the world? The Chinese have used their economy in such a way, and we’ve seen what’s happened with steel already with Chinese dumping. We need to ensure that we look after our own industries.

I could go on about the problems, but I’ll end on a positive note. We can deal with the internal company transfer pricing within the European Union that avoids British corporation tax, the old double Irish or the movement of money around Europe through the free transfer of capital. Will those people who are in favour of us coming out of Europe want to deal with that?

Contracts specifying local applicants only can be made and the need to advertise across Europe will disappear. Will people be supporting that? We can use tariffs to protect key industries, because, if we trade with Europe on world trade conditions, they will have to do the same with us. We can also ensure that the free movement of labour ends and we stop unscrupulous employers bringing in cheap labour—some being paid, effectively, under the minimum wage—to undercut wages, terms and conditions. My argument is not with eastern European workers who are being exploited; it’s with the employers exploiting them and using them to attack wages, terms and conditions of Welsh workers.

In conclusion, we are leaving the European Union. We need to protect our environment and workers’ rights. We voted to come out of the European Union, not to be poorer either as individuals or as a country.

Before turning to the detail of the White Paper, I’d like to say a few words about the general political context and how we treat each other as citizens, having gone through a binary campaign such as last year’s referendum. At times, the tone of the general debate has been appalling, and even violent at times. It’s right in a democratic society that we have proper debate, but we should never stop respecting differences of opinion and treating each other kindly, even, and with respect, and politicians should perhaps show an example in this regard.

But, turning to the White Paper, for Plaid Cymru, our response to the result of the referendum is based on consistent principles, and I’m pleased that these are reflected in the Welsh national White Paper. First of all, whilst there is a mandate to leave the European Union, there is no mandate to leave the single market, and the economic interests of Wales, including agriculture and industry, should be safeguarded as well as funding for our poorest communities. Secondly, there is certainly no mandate to step back from devolution. Thirdly, Wales should have a clear role in negotiations with the European Union. Fourthly, Wales should regenerate its international profile in order to ensure that we as a nation are not seen as being isolationist. Fifthly, young people in Wales shouldn’t lose the opportunities that they currently have in terms of having an experience of life abroad or studying abroad. And, finally, there should be no human cost to leaving the European Union, either through losing workers’ rights in Wales or losing environmental standards or rights for citizens from other European nations who currently live here to remain here.

I am pleased that these principles have all been interwoven into the national Welsh White Paper and are clearly set out. It’s a pity that the Westminster White Paper is little more than a series of descriptions of the problems, rather than offering solutions to those problems. But, in terms of the next steps, what is crucially important now is that the Welsh Government doesn’t decide to sit back and watch developments happening around them. They must take a decision to shape the future, rather than waiting for the future to shape them.

The White Paper includes goals that the Welsh Government can take action on immediately without having to wait for any other Government. For example, the Welsh Government could announce a new international policy to promote Wales on the global level, and they can do that now. The Welsh Government can start a process to seek membership of international organisations dealing with issues that are expected to be transferred from the European Union to Wales. The Welsh Government can state its intention to seek a new official partnership with the Republic of Ireland in order to ensure collaboration for the future. The Welsh Government can propose a constitutional convention and invite the Governments of these isles to participate, particularly on the issue of the British single market and its future outside the European Union. The Welsh Government could start a consultation on a new regional policy for Wales, and the Government can do this now. The Welsh Government can reveal a new framework for the future of our agricultural communities.

My appeal is that we should do everything we can to make Wales resilient by taking the reins ourselves. Such an approach would not only benefit our economy and our nation, but it would also be a valuable approach in bringing our nation back together following a period of very damaging splits.

Leaving the EU has been a hugely divisive issue here in Wales and throughout the UK. I do believe that it is our job here to do our best, working together, between as many parties as we can get together, to try to unite the people of Wales with a plan of action to take us forward in these very difficult circumstances. I do feel that that is our duty here in the Assembly to do that.

I’m acutely aware that my constituency in Cardiff North voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU on 23 June. Cardiff itself voted 60 per cent to remain, just a bit ahead of how London voted, and I know that, in Cardiff, the vote was not confined to the more affluent areas. In Cardiff North, there was barely an area that didn’t actually get a large vote to remain. I therefore feel that I have a mandate from my constituency to do all I can, as far as it is possible, to keep the key elements of what membership of the EU meant to my constituents. I believe that the Welsh White Paper does move in that direction. I think it is a good position for negotiations. However, although Cardiff North voted overwhelmingly to remain, I’m aware that you’ve just got Caerphilly mountain and, go past the Traveller’s Rest and go down the other side—[Interruption.] Yes. It’s a completely different picture, and the Valleys constituencies voted ‘no’, just a very few miles away. I respect their vote, and I respect the fact that that was the majority vote that won throughout Wales. But, I do wonder why this happened. I mean, Cardiff North is made up of people who moved down from the Valleys, as my own family did. Indeed, Cardiff’s wealth was built on the transporting of coal down from the Valleys, taking it out to places like Aden and Singapore, as well as northern France, Bordeaux and Nantes. It has always been an international city, Cardiff, and people in Cardiff come from all over the world, as well as from the Valleys, west Wales, north Wales and Ireland. I think the First Minister said in a previous speech that he made that each and every one of us is the descendant of immigrants. So, I wonder if Cardiff did vote ‘yes’ because of its international links and the cosmopolitan culture that has come here because of so many people being here from so many different parts.

But we do know that migration was a big issue in the referendum. So, how do we reconcile the huge benefits of migration to Wales, which I think we must all acknowledge, with the differing views of it in different parts of Wales? The statistics show that the areas with the fewest migrants had the largest vote to leave. So, how can we pay attention to the 52 per cent who voted to leave and the 48 per cent who voted to stay? I do think that the White Paper does make a good stab at that. It recognises the importance of migrants to the Welsh economy. I don’t think anybody could deny their input to the universities, to the health service or to the social care service. They have a huge input here. It calls for the immediate guarantee of EU migrants living in Wales to be able to remain and have their rights respected. I think this is absolutely crucial—that we must treat all our citizens who live in Wales with respect. The uncertainty that those families are experiencing is inexcusable, and I think we must call here from this Assembly to the Prime Minister to immediately give them the security that they need and they deserve. I hope that that is something that will be taken on board.

I support the fact that the White Paper proposes free mobility for students and for researchers. We know how absolutely crucial it is that research is based on an international basis and how anxious the universities are about leaving the EU. We need the European students. We need the international students. We already know that there has been a drop in applications from EU students—I believe it is about 7 per cent. That has already happened. I visited Cardiff University very soon after the referendum vote, and the staff were utterly dismayed at the result. They were particularly dismayed because a researcher from Italy who had been offered a key post as the best applicant for the job had just withdrawn because he wanted to live in the EU. I know that there are numerous examples like that about Wales. The White Paper proposes that migration could be linked to employment—either movement to a job already obtained, or perhaps a limited period of time to look for a job. My own view is that I support free movement as we have it now, but I think that this is a way of making a practical proposition about a way that we could move forward, and would be very important to discuss in the negotiations.

Finally, I just wanted to make two quick points. We talked a lot about full and unfettered access to the single market. I think that that is absolutely vital, and I also believe that we cannot support Brexit if that is not achieved during the negotiations. Finally, the importance of European structural and investment funds, which are hugely important to us here in Wales.

Perhaps the first question with regard to this document is why the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, chose to launch it in London, given their oft-stated desire to demonstrate the Assembly’s independence from the London establishment. We may also note at this point that the two other parties in the Assembly were not even given a sight of this massively important document for Wales, let alone be allowed to contribute to its content, effectively disenfranchising the many thousands of voters who voted for those parties and Brexit.

We then scrutinise the comments of the second signatory to this document, who states in her introduction that it upholds the freedom of movement and is consistent with full free-market participation—in other words, full and uncontrolled immigration. But of course, this is understandable when she goes on to say:

‘Regardless as to how people voted in the referendum.’

It is a clear sign that Plaid is hellbent on ignoring the will of the Welsh people.

As to the document itself, far from being a blueprint for the economic development of Wales, it has, in fact, a tone of doom, gloom and unrelenting despair. It is littered with such phrases as

‘to avoid the chaos and uncertainty’,

‘“cliff edge” departure’,

‘the overall economic impact is expected to be negative’ and many other such comments, many of which have been reiterated by the First Minister in his introduction today, and all of which are based on the false premise that we shall not be allowed unrestricted access to the economic markets of Europe. Or, put another way, we shall, unless we are very careful not to accept the politicians of Europe, be locked out from the single market. Well, when will the remoaners realise that it will be the great industrialists of Europe who will decide our terms of trade with the European Union and not politicians? This, if one cares to take note, is witnessed by the many utterances of the industrial giants of Europe since Brexit. All industry in Europe will be desperate to continue with the unfettered trade, both for themselves to the UK markets and, pragmatically, for UK business to the EU.

The First Minister's visit to Norway to explore its relationship to the EU was—and shall I put it as delicately as I can—misplaced. It may have escaped his and his advisers’ notice that there is a huge chasm of difference between Norway's trade with Europe and ours. Norway trades at a large surplus with Europe, so it is in its interest to pay to be able to trade freely with the EU and, indeed, agree to certain other regulations imposed by Brussels. This is in complete contrast to the UK, which trades at a huge deficit with the EU to the tune of some £61 billion per year. Any pragmatist can see this as a huge bargaining tool in ensuring that we reach an agreement with the EU that will be very much to our advantage. Not to recognise this—

Will you give way?

I will; just one sec. Not to recognise this is, quite frankly, a folly of the first magnitude. The stark fact is Europe needs us far more than we need them. Yes, I'll take an intervention now.

I appreciate you very much for taking my intervention. Now, semantics and words matter. Today I have listened and I have heard the words ‘us’, ‘this country’ and ‘our’. I think what we're hearing today is the difference between the UK nationalism of people in this Chamber and the Welsh nationalism that you find on this side, because when we talk about our country, we mean Wales. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland. That's the important thing to remember—and I think that's my intervention finished. Thank you.

A pleasure. Wales voted to leave the EU. Accept it, embrace it and move forward positively, and trust the Welsh people to deliver. Thank you.

Can I congratulate the First Minister on the White Paper and add that I will be supporting the motion today, although I lament the fact that there is no specific reference in it to maintaining EU social and environmental standards when we leave the EU? The Welsh public deserves assurances on matters that relate to workers’ rights and environmental protection, and it's a shame that that wasn't in the motion. But I'm glad that there is a mention of this in the White Paper, which I think gives a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing Wales in the face of that Brexit vote. And I think the most interesting parts of the White Paper are the annexes, because they give an evidence base for supporting the claim that the Welsh economy would be massively damaged if we were to leave the single market under any of the alternative models of EU membership. I would suggest to the leader of UKIP that he should read the annexes and take note, because they are based on evidence, not on some hopeful plan that people are going to sign up to trade deals in the future.

I think it’s correct for the First Minister to emphasise the fact that the Brexit vote does need to be respected, however difficult that is for Euro-enthusiasts like me. But that doesn’t mean that we should slit the wrists of the Welsh economy and watch our country follow an inexorable path to poverty. What the people of Wales need to understand is that it’s not just about the job prospects and opportunities for our children that are under threat from Brexit, it’s also about our ability to deliver quality services for the people of Wales. We’ve heard today talk about this £8 billion Brexit dividend. Let me tell you the costs of leaving the EU.

First of all, last year the Government collected £90 billion—forget the EU, this is before we started—they collected £90 billion less in income tax than they had the previous year. Already, we’ve got City banks looking to relocate parts of their activity to the continent as a result of Brexit. That won’t just hit the City of London. That reduced tax take will mean that we will have less to spend on our schools and hospitals here in Wales. We know that the Government will need to borrow £58 billion to cover the Brexit black hole, and there will be a deterioration of £220 billion in terms of the national debt as a result of Brexit over the course of this Parliament.

We know that there’s going to be a divorce bill somewhere between £35 billion and £60 billion, and we know that they’re threatening now to make up and to make a bargain with the EU—‘give us what we want or we will cut corporation tax’. If we want to seriously compete in that way, we’d have to come in under the corporation tax level of Ireland—12 per cent. That means another £100 billion stuffed into the pockets of the rich, and less money for our public services. That is not the kind of country that I want to live in.

Now, promises were made during the referendum—promises that the Brexiteers started to wriggle out of the moment the referendum polls closed. One of the people who made those promises was the leader of the Tory party in the Assembly. Now, many farmers followed him like lambs to the slaughter with his promise of continued subsidies. Well, they’re now waking up to the reality: that for the first time they will have to compete with health for their funding. When farmers realise that they have been duped by his false promises—the leader of the Tories—they will turn on him. [Interruption.] Let me finish. They will turn on him and he will go from Brexit to ‘bricks it’. Now you can intervene.

I really do regret the language that the Member has used, from slitting wrists to lambs to the slaughter, in a debate that she most probably is finding it difficult to come to terms with. As I said, the referendum has happened. We need to move on.

You are right: farmers voted in the majority to come out of Europe because we have an average age of 62 in the agricultural industry, with no opportunity for succession and little or no opportunity for new innovation. We will have an agricultural industry and we’ll succeed, but it’s your Government that is failing to tackle the bread-and-butter issues of bovine TB and rural development.

Let me tell you about bovine TB. Do you know where the compensation comes from to pay farmers on bovine TB? It comes from Europe. Are you promising to compensate for that as well? Come on. You’ve got to get real and understand that you made promises to those farmers that cannot be kept.

Neithiwr yn San Steffan, gwrthododd y Llywodraeth hyd yn oed i gytuno i gynhyrchu adroddiad fyddai’n amlinellu effaith Brexit ar arian cyhoeddus Cymru. Ni fyddwn ni ddim yn derbyn yng Nghymru sefyllfa lle’r rheini sydd â’r lleiaf sy’n talu’r pris uchaf am Brexit. Nid oes un arbenigwr ym maes masnach yn credu ei fod yn bosibl i Brydain derfynu cytundeb mewn dwy flynedd, a bydd yr ansicrwydd yma yn golygu llai o fuddsoddiad, ac yn cael effaith ar swyddi.

Mae’r tablau yn y Papur Gwyn yn dangos yn glir ddibyniaeth diwydiannau yng Nghymru ar bobl o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae’n glir y byddai twristiaeth, sy’n cyfrannu tua £3 biliwn i’r economi Cymreig, yn un o’r meysydd a fyddai’n dioddef yn enbyd pe byddai yna gyfyngder gormodol ar nifer y bobl o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd sy’n cael gweithio yma.

Rhaid cofio hefyd bod 6 y cant o’n meddygon ni yn cael eu hyfforddi yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen mwy o’r rheini arnom ni, nid llai.

Draw your comments to a close now. You have to finish. Thank you.

Thank you. I will conclude there.

Thank you. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. This is not a debate about whether we should stay in the EU. We’ve all moved on from that. I bitterly regret the result, but the result is the result. Now, we have a common objective, and that is achieving a successful Brexit. There are challenges that face the UK and Wales in that context. I think some of the mechanisms of Government and inter-governmental work in particular within the UK will need to be reformed. I want to say a few words about that, I want to say a few words about our relations with the EU, and then there are some specific Welsh interests.

Can I start, then, with the UK’s structure of Government? I think for a long time we’ve realised that better inter-governmental working would strengthen the British constitution, and now the actual Brexit process itself, and then dealing with politics when we’ve left the European Union—these things require much more effective inter-governmental working. We can look at the joint ministerial council, particularly JMC Europe, for the way that’s worked in the past, as something of a best model, but we need to go even further than that. But JMC Europe did work quite effectively because they produced—I’m sorry to be technical—a speaking note for the Council of Ministers in Europe and that required a lot of co-operation between the Governments, and particularly the officials. That’s the sort of thing we’re going to need to replicate.

The First Minister, in the White Paper, makes some, I think, very bold suggestions that we should go from JMCs to a Council of Ministers. I think he’s right to push for that. I hope he has allies in Scotland and Northern Ireland because they’re going to be key. And he’s called for independent arbitration—now, as a great federalist, I wish him well and I particularly wish him more influence that I’ve ever had on the Conservative Governments that determine these matters. Arbitration, I think, would be possible on the Treasury grant system. That is definitely seen in other federal states, but I think arbitration across the policy framework where we have joint UK policies may be a difficult one to achieve. But if he achieves it, it would certainly be in our interest here in Wales.

I do think that what we see in the White Paper about the need for some UK-wide policies—probably agriculture, environment, and there may be social matters and regional policy as well. None of us should forget that, and I appreciate all the parties that have acknowledged that.

Can I now turn to relations with the EU? Here, I do think the Brexiteers need to get their argument sorted out pretty quickly, because some of them speak with glee about the prospect of the EU collapsing with the single market and the euro. They have hitched themselves to the tiger of Trump, who has said some very loose things in this direction, and where that tiger is going to take us, well, no-one yet knows, but I think it will be a rather uncomfortable ride. I think we need to say we want the EU to prosper. That’s why we need a good and effective Brexit. They need the opportunity now to get on with their own goals and their own need for reform, which is there—in any organisation, any state, there needs to be constant work of reform. We need to get the rhetoric right in this. Going into a deal when we’re bad-mouthing them, or seeming to be, anyway, is no way to proceed. [Interruption.] I give way.

I don’t think anybody on the Brexit side is foolish enough to think that Britain’s advantage and Wales’s advantage could be obtained by causing the collapse of the EU. But the big problem with the EU is that it’s fundamentally a political project not an economic project, and the politicians who are determined to try and make it succeed fear that, if we make an economic success of Brexit, that that undermines their own political project, and that is the real conundrum of this, which is why we need unity between parties to try to get over that hurdle.

Well, I think you've rather amplified my anxiety, rather than done anything to calm it. [Laughter.]

Can I just say this? I think some form of mechanism, perhaps a bit like the British-Irish Council, needs to occur between the UK Government, with the devolved Governments involved, and the EU institutions. I think that type of process would send a very positive signal that we do want to be effective partners in areas of common interest.

Can I conclude just on a few Welsh interests? We are vulnerable. There's absolutely no doubt about that, just because of the amount of resources we've had from the EU and the reliance of our own industry on European markets. We need to acknowledge that and do as much as possible to protect the envelopes of resources that we currently get from EU sources, and many Brexiteers have said quite expansive things there, and, you know, I can assure colleagues here that I will remember that and be arguing with them on their moral responsibility. We need maximum access to the single market, the lowest possible tariffs, and I hope the flexibility will be there to achieve that.

And finally, we need to have this awareness that there are opportunities there as well that could play to our advantage, too, but we have to face the realities of our challenging situation as well.

Thank you, David, for your very thoughtful contribution.

There's nothing more enticing, but misleading, than this slogan of taking back control, and one of the things that the Brexiteers have to do now is, as David says, define what we actually mean by that. And far from taking back control, I feel that we may lose completely control of something that is fantastically important to all of us, which is the quality and safety of food. For decades, the food on our plate has been protected by our membership of the EU. What now is going to happen to food standards, and who will regulate them in Brexit Britain? How are we going to avoid another horse meat scandal?

We in Wales are very proud of the Welsh food that we produce and that which we export, along with live animals, to the EU, and we hope that we’re going to be able to continue doing that. But, in gross terms, the amount involved is tiny compared with the manufactured industrial goods or services that contribute to our balance of trade. I looked in vain for the list of foods in the table of goods exported in the Welsh White Paper, and of course it's not there, because the amounts involved are below the top 25. So, it's a real danger that food safety will be traded by other much more powerful forces that will influence the way in which Theresa May will approach these negotiations.

Now, Theresa May has stated really clearly that she doesn't want the UK to stay in the single market, and it looks increasingly likely that tariffs will be imposed on UK goods, as we fall off the end of the two-year process. That means the UK will impose tariffs on EU goods in retaliation. However, I don't think tariffs are the main risk to Welsh agriculture. The fall in the pound has already produced a post-Brexit boost to Welsh exports, which is to be welcomed, but there’s a much greater danger to agriculture in Wales, and that is a flood of cheap imports from other parts of the world, with none of the safeguards on food quality that we rely on within the EU.

Theresa May seems extremely keen to strike a deal across the pond with Donald Trump, and in an interview on BBC radio a couple of weeks ago, the chief economist of the American Farm Bureau Federation made it crystal clear that any US trade deals struck by Theresa May would be contingent on the UK public stomaching imports of US foods that we have previously rejected. We are talking about beef from cattle implanted with growth hormones, chlorine-washed chicken, and unlabelled genetically modified foods. We would have to swallow the 82 pesticides used in the US that are banned in the EU on health and environmental grounds. Amongst these is atrazine, a herbicide thought to affect the immune system and linked to birth defects. Talking about GM foods, in the EU we are protected by the fact that anybody making food using GM ingredients must clearly label that. The only GM foods currently on British shelves are sweet American junk foods like popcorn and cheap cooking oils aimed at the catering trade. In the US, GM is everywhere and doesn’t have to be labelled. The only way you can avoid eating GM ingredients is to buy organic food, cook at home and never eat out.

So, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have all effectively banned GM cultivation; that is our political decision. And what relevance will the Sewel convention have if Theresa May strikes a deal with the United States, which means a flood of GM foods into the UK market? It’ll be impossible to hold that policy. So, we have to appreciate the possibility of all these adulterated foods flooding our market and certainly potentially putting out of business our agriculture, and that is completely scary to me.

In terms of our negotiations on Brexit, it means that we could be expelled from the network of agencies that regulate and provide intelligence in relation to food adulteration activities. We already face major challenges on our food and we need to be really mindful of how we can protect our consumers by remaining part of the European Food Safety Authority, which I understand we can do even if we are chucked out of the single market. We have to bear in mind that, at the moment, we could be shouldering greater responsibility for enforcement of proper food when local authority resourcing of food safety controls are already under strain, and the Food Standards Agency has been narrowed at the moment, and no longer has the sort of expertise that would be required on what is already a global industry.

So, these are major concerns that I hope will be taken into account by the Welsh Government and by the UK Parliament.

I think the reason for Plaid Cymru’s amendment to the debate today, though we agree with the White Paper, is quite clear, and it’s best given by Gerry Holtham to the Lords this morning, actually, in examining this when he said,

‘Without a constitutional protection the Welsh interest is going to be overridden.’

And he went on to say also:

‘The brute political reality is with few marginal seats we just don’t matter’.

Well, this amendment, and what Plaid Cymru is speaking for, makes sure that we do matter, and though we can’t make the guarantees in the Assembly of safeguards around avoiding a mess being made of Brexit by Theresa May and the Conservatives, we can set down a warning—a warning that we won’t let those who negotiate on our behalf get away with a poor deal for Wales.

We can also send a very strong signal with this amendment and debate today. For 20 years, the Eurosceptics have blamed the EU and migrants for every wrong, for every perceived slight, and whilst most of the decisions that have left many of our communities ragged and hollowed out were taken by Westminster Governments, it’s also been a great political convenience for even those in favour of the EU to deflect political fire onto EU institutions rather than themselves. And in June we paid the price for that folly and irresponsibility.

Well, Brexit doesn’t end that. We are now the ones who will harry and press and hold to account those who brought us to this position, and those who made the promises that brought us to this position: £350 million each week for the NHS; no rollback of Assembly powers; every penny kept for farmers; regional aid money made up from central Government. I won’t forget those promises. I don’t hold much hope that they will be kept, but I won’t forget them. And only last night, the Plaid Cymru amendment to secure that ‘leave’ campaigners such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove kept their promises was voted down in the House of Commons by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove et al. To be fair—[Interruption.] In a second; I was making some progress. To be fair, the majority of Welsh MPs voted for that amendment, but once again, the needs of Wales were swept aside by a domineering Westminster elite. I’ll give way to the Member.

I’m fortunate enough to be old enough to have heard the promises that took us into the European Union, and I can assure you that the lies that took us into the European Union are greater lies than these lies that have taken us out. [Interruption.] Those lies, like you say they’re lies, that took us out of the European Union pale into insignificance with the lies that took us into the European Union, such as no loss of sovereignty, no loss of our fishing grounds and, no, we’ll never be asked to go into a single currency. All those lies took us into Europe.

[Inaudible.]—dig your own hole, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] It reminds me of what a Eurosceptic told my colleague Jonathan Edwards today in the House of Commons, that they will tell anything to win the argument, and we just heard it from the mouth of the campaign itself.

This is the kind of double-dealing that has got politics into the dreadful post-truth, alternative facts world we live in. There, I had it written down, ready for the Member to come in with that intervention. Now, Theresa May’s own White Paper on Brexit is the flimsiest and most vapid of things. Surely, any of us who really care for our nation will be looking for three key commitments in any such White Paper. The first is that Welsh farmers, manufactures and traders could continue to access the single market without barriers or tariffs. We’ve already, as an Assembly, voted in favour of membership of EFTA or EEA as the best way of achieving this, but other options may be available—let’s see them. The White Paper, however, offers nothing but meaningless garbage:

‘will prioritise securing the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services between the UK and the EU.’

There’s a blithe assumption here, which we’ve heard throughout this debate, that a UK trade deficit in goods—thought Wales does not have a trade deficit but has a trade surplus—meant that a good trade deal is inevitable. Well, trade has always been a tool of political warfare. It’s destroyed political parties in the past and impoverished nations. We’re told we can’t expect the Westminster Government to reveal its hand in advance, but the EU has revealed its hand in advance. They’re clear: no deal to leave the EU can be better than remaining in the EU. The inference by implication is that the deal must be worse. We’ve seen their hand, and they hold all the aces. All we have are three Brexiteer jokers.

Secondly, as I’ve already touched upon, we must get security that funding will continue for Wales. Now, here the White Paper is very illuminating. It says that, after the autumn statement of 2016, projects will be honoured if they are in line with domestic strategic priorities. Whose domestic strategic priorities? Theresa May and the Conservative Government’s domestic strategic priorities—that’s whose. So, we are outsourcing our regional development policy from Wales into the hands of the Conservatives.

Thirdly, and finally, EU citizens in Wales should have their rights protected. They vote for us as Assembly Members, so we cannot permit them to be used as cannon fodder in a Tory war against the EU. The White Paper offers no assurances on their behalf whatsoever. The Bill to trigger article 50 is a shorn-off shotgun of a Bill—no direction, a scattergun firing pellets in all directions with no aim and no clear target in sight. It’s as likely to injure those pulling the trigger as to hit any target. If we simply accede to these guarantees, and we are not taking back control, we are ceding it to a right-wing cabal who have no interest in Wales, pay lip service to our needs, but vote time and time again to deny Wales resources, control and fairness.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today, and I’ll try to maintain my brevity on Brexit, mindful that it is right to allow as many of us as possible to have a chance to contribute to this debate on a matter that, without question, is going to be one of the most defining issues of our times. ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ White Paper sets out a degree of clarity and provides a purpose that has all too often been, sadly, absent in the debate on what happens next, post the outcome of the European Union referendum. Indeed, it has, in many quarters, been a debate marred by the muddy waters of uncertainty and a rhetoric that has relayed not just alternative facts, but rallied an alternative reality. Wales was told that we wouldn’t lose a penny if the UK voted to leave the EU. If this is a promise broken, it could have long-reaching consequences for our country. It is right, then, that we as a nation, Assembly and Government call this out and press for the best for our future.

The principal argument for single market participation is to prevent the haemorrhaging of jobs and investment. This is crucial to our foundation industry of steel and to the advanced manufacturing sector that is a pivotal part in providing skilled employment and economic prosperity in north-east Wales. We need the mechanisms in place to ensure that we build on these economic foundations, not take a wrecking ball to them: Tata Steel at Shotton, Airbus, Toyota, Kingspan, Kimberly-Clark—the list goes on—and not forgetting the many small to medium-sized business for whom being able to import and export tariff free is key. Of course, the Welsh agricultural sector, and our rural communities as a consequence, are facing huge uncertainty following the referendum result and are in the firing line should Wales not secure participation in the single market.

Exit from the EU must not lead to a race to the bottom when it comes to workers’ protection and rights. It’s absolutely right that we must have legislation to stop workers being exploited. It’s all the more prescient when we consider that many of the concerns voiced by a number of my constituents on immigration can be linked to exploitation and undercutting by unscrupulous employers. A suite of rights that protects everyday workers has emanated from EU legislation, and we must not fall for the fallacy of the regular right-wing rhetoric that says that deregulation of these rights will lead to greater productivity. Rolling back these rights will be at the expense of workers in Wales and is a one-way route to low wages, job insecurity and discrimination.

I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union. The majority of my constituents in Delyn voted to leave, and the referendum result in Flintshire broadly reflected the overall UK result. I now have constituents who get in touch, frustrated that we are not already further out of the exit door, but I’m equally e-mailed by constituents who are fearful for our future, and that of Wales in particular, and would rather that we would go into reverse gear on the referendum. Whilst many of us in this Chamber and in this country were saddened—that’s an understatement—by the result of the EU referendum, we cannot let how we proceed post referendum further fuel distrust, disinterest and disengagement in politics. But neither, though, should we compromise on the values of decency, diversity and equality that many of us have fought for and championed over a number of years.

I believe we can tackle the tensions that led people to lash out at a system that they felt did, and delivered, nothing for them—job insecurity, undercutting, exploitation, the perceived lack of opportunity to get on in life and to prosper—without bearing down on the lowest common denominator of debate. As I said during last week’s equality debate, the tone of political debate sadly seems to have shifted. To call this out as unacceptable is not about stifling free speech or political correctness; it is about Wales being an inclusive, warm and welcoming place, where we behave with dignity and respect towards one another as fellow human beings.

Let’s be clear: it’s not progress on equal rights for women, LGBT people, the BME community and people with disabilities that saw the skilled jobs and opportunities of industry decimated and the rise of low-paid, insecure, underemployment. We must have the political will and motivation to address and progress the latter without rewinding the rights and creating fear of the former, to secure a future for Wales that is one of economic fairness and prosperity, but also that defends and extends social justice.

We are asked to say that the UK Government hasn’t set a detailed plan. I’m not sure that is entirely fair. I felt that the Prime Minister’s speech was pretty substantive in her 12 points and what she put behind those, and we then did get a White Paper, putting some more detail around that. We are then asked to recognise the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the European Union. I am very happy indeed to do that.

We’re then asked to recognise the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the European Union. I’m very happy indeed to do that. Usually when I hear that phrase emanating from a Labour source, it is followed by the word ‘but’. In this case, instead of the word ‘but’, we have points 3 and 4: to welcome the publication of the White Paper ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ and to endorse its priorities. I’ve previously spoken about some of the discrepancies between ‘full and unfettered access’ to the single market and ‘full participation’ in the single market. I was assured by Lesley Griffiths, I think, on Thursday that those two phrases are equivalent. So, I will accept the tone of what the First Minister said, both in that White Paper and earlier. He said he wants to stay in the single market, I believe, and in the customs union. He wants to see an open labour market where anyone from the EU can still come to this country with a job offer, or indeed just to come and look for a job albeit within a period of time. He says he wants to carry on paying into the budget, and he wants a long transitional period before anything much changes.

I think Julie Morgan was perhaps rather franker about what that position implies. It implies, in her words, keeping all the key elements of the EU. Now, she may want to do that representing her Cardiff North constituents, but the First Minister is meant to represent the people of Wales, who voted by over 52 per cent to leave the European Union. I fear that he hasn’t grasped why many people voted ‘no’. I think there are many good reasons about trade—many good reasons about opening our economy and trading freely with the whole world, rather than just one declining part of it according to a single set of regulation that everyone must obey in order to trade at all. But I think the idea that simply by having some restrictions around benefits, or clamping down a bit more on the exploitation of workers, and undercutting of the minimum wage, while important, and something we would support, is not sufficient. I think, for many people, the issue is unlimited numbers of people from much lower wage economies being able to come into our country and compete away their opportunity to work for what might be a higher amount than the minimum wage. The minimum wage fast becomes a maximum wage.

And it seems he has finally decided, after a period of indecision, and some waxing and waning, to say that he wants to be in the single market even if the implication of that is we are unable to move away from free movement of labour. That is his decision. But I think it makes it very difficult for the First Minister and this Assembly, or certainly his Government, to engage constructively with the UK Government if the bottom line of the Welsh Government is, essentially, single market membership and all the factors that I have listed. That is very clearly at odds with where the UK Government is. Full and unfettered access—we could look at that, along with the free and frictionless trade; membership of EFTA as a way forward.

Perhaps he could have found common ground with other parties in this Assembly. However, he has chosen instead to try and reach a deal with Plaid Cymru, which it appears, in their amendment, they go back on. There’s some great negotiation, and, in point 6, we’re asked to note the UK Government’s intention to seek to trigger article 50. Even Jeremy Corbyn, in Westminster, is whipping his MPs to support triggering article 50. Yet the First Minister and his troops are unable to do that. Instead, they seek some sort of compromise to paper over the cracks with Plaid Cymru, and merely note it, yet then have Plaid coming and putting this amendment against the spirit of what they thought they had agreed.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Would the Member agree that it would be easier to perhaps come to a certain agreement if we understood what the UK Government’s intention was around the single market and continued access to that? For example, he knows—as he’s just written to members of the committee on which we both serve—that George Eustice has pulled out today from coming to be examined in committee on Thursday, about what the single market means.

I thank the Member very much for bringing me on to what was going to be my next point. I have a particular concern about what David Davis said, that, in the context of devolution, there’ll be powers coming from the EU, and we will have to decide where they most properly land—whether that is Westminster, Holyrood, or whatever. That is not the case. There will be a restriction on our right to legislate in a devolved context lifted when we leave the EU, as the First Minister very clearly and properly said.

And we would have liked to examine that UK Minister about what that meant, particularly in the area of the committee I chair, where many of those areas are extraordinarily important to Wales. That opportunity has now been denied us. I have copied you, Llywydd, into that note. And I think it does betoken at least the appearance of a lack of respect for the Assembly and for our devolved powers. I hope that will not continue to be the position; I hope the leader of the opposition will use his good offices to help ensure that. But, certainly, when the First Minister speaks clearly on that, he will have the support of our party in doing that.

Now, if I may conclude, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has, I think, set out a pretty clear approach. She has said, if it is necessary, she will prioritise restricting freedom of movement above the single market. We believe she is right in that approach, we believe she speaks for the people of Wales as well as for the people of the UK as a whole, and I believe she has earned the right to be given freedom and flexibility to negotiate that once article 50 is triggered, which we support.

I will confine my contribution to what we recognise as equalities. And my first observation is that, unlike the Welsh White Paper and the Scottish Government’s Paper, the UK White Paper doesn’t directly discuss the implications for equalities of Brexit. And, to me, that is a conspicuous but concerning omission. Perhaps the First Minister could have pointed it out had the UK Government provided a draft in advance of this publication. Nevertheless, would you raise it at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, if not before, First Minister?

The Welsh Government says it will develop dialogue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to consider the detail and the implications for equality of exit from the EU. And I welcome that commitment again. But I do appeal to you to urge the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary to follow Wales’s lead and to have those same discussions with the EHRC because the implications for equality of Brexit are important. There are direct consequences and considerations, as well as wider cultural thoughts surrounding that. There is direct funding, for example, for the 2014-20 period through the European Commission’s strategic engagement for gender equality programmes. The EU has allocated more than €6 billion to achieve gender equality targets and objectives. What we need to know is whether those funding streams will dry up, and if they do, what are the consequences of that?

This morning, I met with Chwarae Teg and one of the issues that we discussed was the future of their Agile Nation 2 project that helps improve the position of women in the workforce across nine priority sectors in Wales. That scheme is funded, in part, by the Welsh Government and also by the European social fund, and that is just one example. As the Welsh Government’s White Paper notes, consideration has to be given to the potential impact of the loss of EU funding for equalities and the well-being of people with protected characteristics. At Westminster, Harriet Harman, with the support of a cross-party coalition of MPs, has tabled an amendment calling for the Government to protect women’s rights during and after Brexit. The UK White Paper states that the great repeal Bill will maintain the protections and standards that benefit workers and that, moreover, the UK Government has committed to not only safeguarding the rights of workers set out in European legislation, but enhancing them. I’m really pleased to hear it, but I’m not absolutely convinced by it. We heard an awful lot of promises along the way and this seems just to be another one of those.

One of the issues that I really am concerned about, as chair of the all-party group on the trafficking of human beings, is what precisely Brexit means for the UK’s co-operation with EU bodies like Eurojust and Europol. The White Paper says,

‘We will continue to work with the EU to preserve European security, to fight terrorism, and to uphold justice across Europe.’

But it doesn’t even mention Eurojust and the EU’s judicial co-operation unit. I’m aware of time and I did promise that I would be brief, so therefore, I will finish on this: it is the sad case that some of the debate that we’ve had—not here today, but that which has led us to where we are—did breathe new life into old prejudice and fears and ugliness. It is, I feel, more important than ever that we are unambiguous in the message that we send to minorities and other vulnerable groups, that the UK Government should, first, act now in that regard, and must guarantee the status of EU citizens already living here in the EU and not use them—and it has happened today—as bargaining chips for the future.

I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this very important debate and to congratulate those who have brought this White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future: Transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe’, into existence, on both sides: in Labour and Plaid Cymru. Also, I’d like to congratulate several contributors this afternoon on the maturity of the debate that we have had here: Steffan Lewis particularly, but also Eluned Morgan, Hannah Blythyn, Julie Morgan—I could continue; and even David Melding. I congratulate you all—and also Leanne Wood and Simon Thomas. But, I only have five minutes, so I’ll stop there naturally.

Rydym wedi clywed llawer am barchu canlyniad y refferendwm ar 23 Mehefin, ac rydym yn gwneud hynny. Nid yw’r ddadl ynghylch sbarduno erthygl 50 yn ymwneud ag ailgynnal yr ymgyrch refferendwm honno—mae honno wedi hen fynd heibio; mae'n ymwneud â chael cynllun manwl i adael Ewrop. Dyna beth mae'r ddadl hon yn ymwneud ag ef.

Mae llawer wedi cael ei ddweud am yr angen i iachau cymdeithas ranedig. Dylai iachau—ac rwy’n gwybod ychydig am iachau—ond dylai iachau ar ran Llywodraeth y DU, awgrymaf, fod ar ffurf parchu barn y 52 y cant yn naturiol ac, ar yr un pryd, gwneud eich gorau i ddarparu ar gyfer y 48 y cant, gan nad yw ymorchestu cyfresol yn arbennig o annwyl nac yn iachaol. Rhwbio trwynau’r 48 y cant a bleidleisiodd ‘aros’ yn barhaus ynddo oherwydd eu bod wedi colli, drwy wthio yn awr ar gyfer y Brexit caletaf posib: sut mae hynny yn iachau cymdeithas ranedig? Siawns y byddai Brexit meddal, yn nes at farn y 48 y cant, gan barchu barn y 52 y cant, yn ateb y diben. Gwneud y gorau o'r gwaethaf. Huw.

Diolch. Thank you for giving way. He seems to have read this morning the original Hippocratic oath clearly, which says, first of all, ‘Do no harm’. [Laughter.]

I’m glad of your reminder of one of my old oaths there, Huw. Making the best of a bad job in this current situation, while exiting the EU, means actually trying to stay in the single European market, like prosperous Norway— outside the EU but in the single market. Because the single market, as we’ve heard, is vital to Wales. Sixty-eight per cent of Welsh exports are to the EU; 200,000 jobs in Wales are tied to that single market. All that European regional aid funding: what’s going to happen to it? Don’t hold your breath; it’s not going to come from the UK Parliament. All this stands to be thrown away if we just roll over and vote to trigger article 50 without so much as a whimper, giving Theresa May a blank canvas to cosy up to Donald Trump in a desperate bid to strike a trade deal with somebody.

Now, just a thought: under the current Government of Wales Act 2006, relations with the EU are not listed as a subject of competence or an exception. Stay with me now, team, right; it’s a silent subject. The Assembly does have competence now to legislate for silent subjects, provided that the legislation in question also relates to a devolved subject, like agriculture, that the leader of the Conservatives is so keen to lead our farmers down whatever blind-ending country lane. So, UK withdrawal from the EU will mean the end of the common agricultural policy and a have a huge impact on our agriculture, which is a conferred subject now, devolved to Wales. It could be argued that this Assembly has the competence now to legislate on the issue of whether notification under article 50 should be given now. Like I said, just a thought.

Will the Member give way?

Rhun.

As well as supporting this White Paper today, does the Member agree that Members here in this Chamber should also support Plaid Cymru’s amendment in order to show that we are determined enough here about the importance of making sure that Wales’s voice is heard and respected that we say that we cannot support article 50 now until we have the security and even the framework that we need, and that’s a duty on us to people, whichever way they voted in the referendum?

Exactly, and well said. Wales needs a detailed plan—[Interruption.] I haven’t got time, team, especially for Andrew R.T. Davies. Wales needs a plan—a detailed plan—to leave the European Union. Labour and Plaid here have produced one. Worth a read, including the annexes—‘Securing Wales’ Future’. Because—and just ending now—talking to many people, especially our young people, they feel betrayed. Their futures as Europeans, gone, unless we can guarantee European free travel, education and study for our young people. All because of austerity, anger and alternative facts, and no plan. That £350 million on the side of a bus is the same as the weapons of mass destruction. Now, we’re desperate—we’re going to be desperate—for trade deals. Theresa May cosying up to Donald Trump. No. Like Rhun, like the Plaid group, I shall vote against triggering article 50. We could do it and we need to do it because Wales’s voice needs to be heard. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. I know that time is short, but can I begin by saying that there are some myths that need to be dispelled here? First of all, this is not a debate about whether the referendum result should be respected. It’s going to happen. That’s it. The question is settled. But let’s not pretend that there was an overwhelming vote to leave the EU. It was 52 per cent. Let’s not pretend that the only reason why people voted to leave was immigration. As many people talked to me about immigration as talked to me about wanting to give David Cameron a kicking. That was one of the reasons that I heard on the doorstep.

I remember, in 1997, this place was established on a similar percentage of the vote. There were those in the Conservative Party who wanted to ignore the referendum at the time. John Redwood, when he was asked about the Scottish referendum result, which was 3:1 in favour, argued that devolution should not happen in Scotland because the majority of the electorate had not voted in favour. We see now, of course, the double standards that he has. Because I fought tooth and nail against any idea that the referendum result then, no matter how narrow it was, should be ignored, I cannot advocate ignoring the result of last year’s referendum, close though it was.

So, that issue is resolved. But, to suggest that somehow it was a vote for a hard Brexit in the absence of any specific question is the same as suggesting that the vote in 1997 was a vote for independence. Clearly, it was for a limited form, then, of self-government. The lesson to remember is this, and Dai Lloyd made reference to this: those of us who were on the winning side in 1997 worked to win people over after that, which is why more than 80 per cent of the people of Wales support devolution now. We did not abuse them. We did not suggest they were traitors. We did not say they were stupid. We worked with them. And that is a lesson for the hard Brexiters, not those in this Chamber, but those outside who think that the best way to get their way is through abuse.

In terms of some of the other points that were made, it’s perfectly right that there should be work towards a UK framework for some areas, such as agriculture. It may well make sense. Animal health—it makes sense to have a common policy across GB. But the point is this: those frameworks should be agreed not imposed by one Government over the other three. Agriculture is devolved. Full stop. End of story. People voted in 2011 that that should be the case by 2:1 in a referendum. The UK Government has no right to change that. When those powers come back from Brussels, they come here. They do not stop in London. It’s hugely important that those discussions about frameworks do continue and that is something that we, of course, would want to see happen.

Can I remind those who claim that the Norwegian model was not on the table in the referendum that Arron Banks supported it, Daniel Hannan supported it and the ‘Daily Express’ supported it? So, the Norwegian model was very much on the table at that time, which is why I went there. It is a model that we can look at. It is not perfect. Norway is a prosperous country—half of the UK’s oil comes from Norway—and it is happy to be part of the single market even though it’s not part of the EU.

I heard what Neil Hamilton had to say. He puts much faith in a trade deal with the US President, who was elected on a protectionist mandate, who has said that every country in the world has taken advantage of the US. I don’t share his optimism that we will have a free trade deal with America that is anything other than good for America. That is what he was elected to do. We can’t complain about that. He is a protectionist President. So, I don’t share his optimism in that regard. I listened carefully to his plan. He spoke for exactly 11 minutes and 30 seconds and I heard nothing. Those days must go. We must start hearing more from those who are on the harder side of Brexit.

I listened carefully to Andrew R.T. Davies. I have to say to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, after the referendum, he was in the media suggesting that some areas should be given back to Westminster. If he was misquoted, he should have dealt with that in the media. He was saying that agriculture and regional economic development should be run from Westminster. That is not what the people of Wales voted for. [Interruption.] Of course.

I have continued the argument that I made after the referendum that there need to be UK frameworks on agriculture, structural funds and university funding because that is the best way to secure specific budget lines out of the UK Treasury—to make sure that the money flows to Wales that we need. I ask you to support that position because when I’ve put that position forward, you’ve tried to rubbish it. I detect that you are moving to that ground now, First Minister.

No. I agree. The question is this: does he believe that the UK Government should impose these frameworks or does he believe that they should be agreed by the four Governments?

They should be agreed.

I’m grateful for the clarification in that, because that’s not where he was at the referendum last year. He has said, in fairness to him, that he believes that those frameworks should now be agreed, not imposed by the UK Government. I welcome that. I welcome that. He also said that there are 730 days to deal with the impact of—

Will you take an intervention?

No. He’s had one intervention already. He’s on the record. I welcome what he has said.

No, no. You can’t make that accusation.

He has said that there are 730 days to deal with Brexit—it’s rather less than that, because actually, nothing will happen before September, once the French and German elections are out of the way, so, actually, the timeframe is rather more squeezed.

I listened to what David Rowlands had to say. Can I say to him that shouting at foreigners is not the best way forward? If you say to the EU, ‘You need us more than we need you’, they will tell you where to stick that view, in the same way as if the EU said that to the UK—he’d say exactly the same thing, if it was said about the UK. He has to remember that the UK joined the EU, or the common market at the time, because it was desperate to join, because the UK economy was a mess. And, as he put it, the lies that took us in were bigger than the lies that took us out. [Laughter.] That’s for him to explain.

The other point I have to tell him about is, yes, of course, in monetary terms, the EU exports more to the UK than the other way around; it would be odd if it didn’t, because it’s nearly 10 times the size of the UK. But, as a percentage, 67 per cent of Welsh exports go to the EU, 7 per cent of the EU’s exports go to the UK. Actually, percentage wise, we are far more reliant on the European market than the European market is on us. I beg of him to just think carefully about this being a sensible agreement between equals and not trying to say that they need us more than we need them. That simply isn’t correct. We all need each other in Europe to make sure that we all prosper.

I agree with what the First Minister has said, but surely the point here is that trade enriches both parties and, at the moment, the balance of trade with the EU and with individual members of the EU is very much in their favour. So, all that that does is show that it’s in their interests to enter into a free trade agreement with us to carry on the arrangements that we’ve already got. It’s not a question of us ordering them to do something, or demanding something; it’s in their interests as much as ours.

Well, I have to say that that’s not the impression that is given by some in UKIP. It was just said that the EU needs us more than we need them. We need each other; that’s the reality of the situation. And, as David Rowlands said, we don’t want to be locked out of the single market. We don’t want to be locked out of the single market—we’ve got to be in the single market. It shows some of the confused thinking that is taking place here.

I know time is short, Llywydd, but I have taken interventions, with your indulgence. David Melding, as ever, always worth listening to—briefly, we need a council of Ministers that is similar to the one that exists in the EU; it needs to be a council of Ministers that agrees common policies and frameworks. If there are going to be state aids in the UK, they will have to be agreed. There are some who’ll argue that there shouldn’t be any state-aid rules at all. In that case, it’s a free-for-all within the UK and you start a trade war within the UK. That, surely, is in no-one’s interest. There needs to be an independent arbitration mechanism—probably a court—to arbitrate disputes when it comes to the interpretation of those state-aid rules. The UK Government can’t do it; it’s got a clear conflict of interest.

I have spoken to other Governments. I’ll turn to what Steffan Lewis has said very quickly.

Wel, nid yw’n wir i ddweud nad ydym ni’n gwneud dim byd. Rydym ni wedi gofyn am gonfensiwn cyfansoddiadol ers amser hir. Nid oes diddordeb gyda’r Alban; maen nhw’n moyn annibyniaeth. Nad oes modd cael unrhyw fath o gytundeb gan Ogledd Iwerddon o achos y sefyllfa fanna. Rŷm ni’n rhyngwladol—byddaf yn America ar ddiwedd y mis hwn er mwyn sicrhau ein bod ni’n dal i gryfhau’r cysylltiadau busnes rhyngom ni ac America. Rwyf i wedi siarad â Phrif Weinidog Gibraltar, yr Ynys Manaw, Jersey, Guernsey, y Taoiseach yng Ngweriniaeth yr Iwerddon, a hefyd, wrth gwrs, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon. Nid yw’n iawn i ddweud, felly, nad oes dim byd wedi digwydd yn y cyfamser.

Finally, dealing with the point that Mark Reckless made, one of the things that I was interested in is what he said about EFTA being a possible way forward. I don’t want to misquote him; that’s what he said. I welcome that. EFTA, of course, has a court that governs trade relations between EFTA members and so the UK would be subject to that court. He’s nodding, so I’m glad for that clarification.

The other issue that, really, has never been addressed—and it is relevant to Wales—is the issue of the border. The reality is that the UK will have an open land border with another EU country. There is no way that the EU is going to say that, if you have a red passport with a harp on it, you’ve got freedom of movement into the UK, whereas, if you’ve got a red passport with any other emblem, you don’t. Nobody’s going to agree to that. So, the issue of Ireland is still very much unresolved. It affects us in Wales, because of the trade links that we have through the three ports into the Irish ports. We still have no answer as to whether there’ll be customs posts, as there were, border posts—there never have been in the past—there at those ports, with the affect that there will be on trade.

Finally, Llywydd, just to say this: we are away from the referendum debate now. The referendum has happened. There needs to be realism on both sides; we now need to work towards a sensible solution. So, for me, the message today has to be that we need to stop talking about a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, but let’s have, as far as Wales is concerned, a sensible Brexit.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.