Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 5:33 pm on 7 February 2017.
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—