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.