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—