The next item on the agenda is the statement by the First Minister on the response to article 50. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Llywydd. Members will know that the Prime Minister of the UK has this afternoon written to the President of the European Council formally declaring the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union, as required under article 50 of the treaty governing the EU. So, today marks the end of easy rhetoric and the beginning of serious negotiation.

Gallaf ddweud, Llywydd, fy mod wedi trafod y llythyr erthygl 50 yn gyffredinol â’r Prif Weinidog pan gyfarfuom yn Abertawe yr wythnos diwethaf. Dylwn ei gwneud yn glir, fodd bynnag, na welais y llythyr cyn heddiw ac ni chawsom ein gwahodd i gyfrannu at y broses o’i ddrafftio. Mae hyn yn annerbyniol ac yn benllanw i broses hynod rwystredig pan gafodd y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eu trin â diffyg parch yn gyson. Mae hyn i gyd hyd yn oed yn fwy anffodus o ystyried mai nod datganedig Llywodraeth y DU ei hun oedd datblygu fframwaith negodi ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Maent wedi colli’r cyfle i roi mynegiant clir i’r nod hwnnw.

Lywydd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn credu yn y DU lawn cymaint ag y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn credu ynddi, hyd yn oed os yw ein gweledigaeth yn wahanol iawn i’w gweledigaeth hwy. Os yw’r Prif Weinidog yn credu go iawn yn yr undeb ac yn credu mewn adlewyrchu dymuniad y DU gyfan, yna mae angen iddi fabwysiadu ymagwedd wahanol iawn. Nid wyf yn gweld sut y gall y Prif Weinidog honni ei bod yn negodi ar ran y DU gyfan pan fo’n anwybyddu hawliau’r Llywodraeth hon i siarad ar ran pobl Cymru.

Fodd bynnag, Llywydd, rwyf bob amser wedi dweud yn glir fod yn rhaid parchu canlyniad y refferendwm ac anfon llythyr erthygl 50 yw’r canlyniad rhesymegol i’r canlyniad hwnnw. Galwais gyfarfod o’r Cabinet yn gynharach y prynhawn yma ac ar ôl misoedd o ddyfalu, gallwn symud ymlaen yn awr at y trafodaethau. Lywydd, ym mis Ionawr, amlinellodd Llywodraeth Cymru, gan weithio gyda Phlaid Cymru, ymagwedd gredadwy, gynhwysfawr ac awdurdodol tuag at adael yr UE yn ein Papur Gwyn ‘Diogelu Dyfodol Cymru’. Diffiniwyd blaenoriaethau Cymru yn glir gennym ar gyfer trafodaethau’r UE a gwnaethom hynny mewn ffordd sy’n gweithio ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Galwem am barhau mynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl. Galwem am fwy o reolaeth ar fudo drwy wneud cyswllt clir â gwaith, gan warchod rhag camfanteisio ar weithwyr, am gynnydd yn y grant bloc i gymryd lle swm cyllid blynyddol yr UE o £680 miliwn, heb unrhyw ragamodau ynglŷn â sut y caiff hwnnw ei ddefnyddio. Galwem am barch llawn i’r setliad datganoli wrth ddiwygio cyfansoddiad y DU i’w wneud yn addas i’r diben ar ôl gadael yr UE—pwnc y bûm yn ei drafod heddiw gyda chyd-Aelodau’r Blaid Lafur o bob rhan o’r DU. Galwem am gadw’r mesurau diogelu cymdeithasol, cyflogaeth ac amgylcheddol a ddatblygwyd drwy ein haelodaeth o’r UE, ac am roi trefniadau trosiannol ar waith i sicrhau nad oes ymyl clogwyn i fusnesau wrth i ni bontio o’r UE tuag at berthynas newydd ag Ewrop.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno â’r Prif Weinidog fod Undeb Ewropeaidd gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Brydain, a bod Teyrnas Unedig gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Ewrop. Mae arnom angen ein gilydd, yn rhan o’r UE ai peidio, ac rwy’n croesawu pwyslais y Prif Weinidog ar berthynas ‘newydd, ddofn ac arbennig’ gyda’r UE. Rwyf bob amser wedi dweud nad yw gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn golygu gadael Ewrop. Dylai’r ymagwedd tuag at drafodaethau adlewyrchu’r ysbryd hwn o ddiddordeb cyffredin.

Mewn llythyr atom heddiw, mae Llywodraeth y DU yn dweud ei bod wedi ystyried ein chwe blaenoriaeth wrth lunio ei safbwynt negodi, ac er gwaethaf y diffygion enfawr ym mhroses negodi fewnol y DU, credaf y gallwn weld tystiolaeth o hyn. Ceir tir cyffredin ar y farchnad sengl—rydym yn galw am ‘fynediad llawn a dilyffethair’ tra’u bod hwy’n dweud y

‘fasnach fwyaf rhydd a mwyaf diffrithiant bosibl’.

Mae’r DU yn awyddus i gyflawni hyn drwy gytundeb masnach rydd dwyochrog pwrpasol â 27 gwlad yr UE. Nid ydym yn credu mai dyna’r unig ffordd, na’r ffordd orau o reidrwydd hyd yn oed, ond rydym yn cydnabod y gallai’r dull hwn weithio mewn egwyddor. Mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn cydnabod bod rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn cynrychioli safbwynt diofyn y DU yn absenoldeb cytundeb. Ailadroddaf yr hyn a ddywedais sawl gwaith: byddai canlyniad o’r fath yn drychineb i Gymru ac yn fy marn i, i’r DU yn ei chyfanrwydd.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno hefyd â’r ffocws ar berthynas arbennig y DU ag Iwerddon. Mae llawer o sylw’n cael ei roi i gadw ffin feddal ar y tir rhwng gogledd a de Iwerddon, ac rydym yn cefnogi’r flaenoriaeth honno. Ond mae fy ffocws i ar ffin forol Cymru ag Iwerddon, yn enwedig porthladdoedd Caergybi, Abergwaun, a Doc Penfro. Mae’r ardal deithio gyffredin gyda’n cymydog agosaf o ddiddordeb allweddol i Gymru, fel y mae i Iwerddon, ac roedd y Taoiseach a minnau’n cytuno ar hyn pan ddaeth i fy ngweld ychydig wythnosau yn ôl.

Lywydd, mae angen dwy gyfres o drafodaethau wrth gwrs, fel y mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn ei ddweud. Y gyntaf yw proses ymadael erthygl 50 sy’n seiliedig ar gytuniad. Yr ail yw perthynas y DU â’r UE yn y dyfodol. Yn ein barn ni, o ystyried maint y gwaith hwn, a hyd yn oed gan dybio cymaint o ewyllys da â phosibl ar y ddwy ochr, mae’n annhebygol iawn y bydd hi’n bosibl cwblhau’r ddau gytundeb o fewn dwy flynedd. Am y rheswm hwnnw, rydym wedi dadlau’n gyson am gyfnod trosiannol i bontio ein perthynas newidiol ag Ewrop. Unwaith eto, rwy’n credu bod Llywodraeth y DU, yn raddol, wedi cyrraedd yr un safbwynt gan ei bod yn sôn fwyfwy—ac yn benodol felly, mewn gwirionedd, yn llythyr y Prif Weinidog—am gyfnod gweithredu i reoli’r broses o adael yr UE.

Lywydd, fel gydag unrhyw gyd-drafod, bydd angen rhywfaint o barodrwydd ar y ddwy ochr i gyfaddawdu a chytuno ar gyfnewidiadau. Rydym yn realistig ac yn deall pam na all y Prif Weinidog ddamcaniaethu’n gyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd ynglŷn â pha gyfnewidiadau y bydd y Llywodraeth yn barod i’w gwneud wrth i’r trafodaethau ddatblygu. Ond o’m rhan ni, rydym yn glir fod yn rhaid i fynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl fod yn brif flaenoriaeth i’r DU. Bydd unrhyw beth llai na hyn yn ddrwg i Gymru.

Lywydd, gadewch i mi fod yn glir. Rydym yn barod i weithio gyda Llywodraeth y DU i ddadlau’r achos dros berthynas newydd, ddofn ac arbennig gyda’r UE, wedi’i hangori mewn cytundeb masnach rydd cynhwysfawr ac eang gyda 27 gwlad yr UE, sy’n darparu mynediad llawn a dilyffethair, neu fynediad rhydd a diffrithiant os yw hynny’n well gennych, at y farchnad sengl. Mae hynny’n hanfodol i’n busnesau, i’n heconomi, i ffyniant Cymru yn y dyfodol ac yn wir, i’r DU gyfan. Byddwn yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i hyrwyddo’r achos hwn, yma yn y DU, ym Mrwsel a chyda’n partneriaid Ewropeaidd. Rwy’n ailadrodd eto: ni ellir dweud yn ddigon aml y byddai rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn drychineb i Gymru.

Lywydd, fel y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid a Llywodraeth Leol a minnau wedi dweud yn ddigon clir, mae proses y Cyd-bwyllgor Gweinidogion a’n hebryngodd at y pwynt hwn wedi bod yn destun siom a rhwystredigaeth ddifrifol i ni, ac rydym yn parhau i bwyso ar Lywodraeth y DU i’n cynnwys yn uniongyrchol ac yn llawn yn y trafodaethau eu hunain wedi i’r fformat gael ei gytuno gyda’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae llawer o gwestiynau pwysig sy’n parhau i fod heb eu hateb yma yn y DU, wrth gwrs, yn enwedig ar gyllid a’n materion cyfansoddiadol. Addawyd i Gymru na fyddai’n colli ceiniog o gyllid o ganlyniad i Brexit a byddwn yn dal Llywodraeth y DU at ei gair.

O ran y materion cyfansoddiadol, mae’r Prif Weinidog yn dweud y bydd gennym fwy o bwerau datganoledig ar ôl gadael yr UE ac na fydd unrhyw beth sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd yn cael ei fachu’n ôl. Os mai felly y bydd, fe groesawaf y canlyniad hwnnw. Os nad felly y bydd, bydd y Llywodraeth hon yn gwrthwynebu’n egnïol—fel y bydd eraill yn y Siambr, nid oes gennyf unrhyw amheuaeth—unrhyw ymgais i fachu pwerau’n ôl neu i sicrhau bod y pwerau’n aros yn Whitehall yn hytrach na dod yn syth yma o’r UE. Bydd gennyf fwy i’w ddweud am hynny ar ôl i’r Papur Gwyn ar y Bil diddymu mawr gael ei gyhoeddi yfory.

Lywydd, o ran trafodaethau’r UE, os yw Llywodraeth y DU yn barod i weithio’n adeiladol gyda ni, yna rydym yn barod i wneud popeth yn ein gallu i helpu. Mae gennym enw da o fewn yr UE, yn enwedig ymhlith sefydliadau’r UE, am fod yn Ewropeaid da. Mae hynny wedi cael ei ddatblygu dros lawer o flynyddoedd drwy ein safonau uchel wrth weithredu rhaglenni Ewropeaidd, ein gwelededd ym Mrwsel a’n cyfranogiad gweithgar a brwdfrydig mewn ystod eang o rwydweithiau a phartneriaethau Ewropeaidd. Rydym yn barod i ddefnyddio ein henw da fel cyfalaf i helpu i ddadlau achos y DU am berthynas â’r Undeb Ewropeaidd a fydd o fudd i’r ddwy ochr yn y dyfodol.

Mae gan Lywodraeth y DU, a’r Prif Weinidog yn arbennig, gyfrifoldeb trwm yn awr wrth arwain y trafodaethau. Bydd angen iddi hi a’r tîm o’i chwmpas sylweddoli bod negodi’n llwyddiannus yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol ichi wrando a pharchu barn a buddiannau cyfreithlon y rhai y byddwch yn negodi â hwy. Ond gorchwyl cyntaf y Llywodraeth hon yw siarad dros Gymru, a byddwn yn gwneud hynny gydag egni a phenderfyniad. Ni fyddwn yn pwdu ar y cyrion, ond yn hytrach, yn chwarae ein rhan ac yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i sicrhau’r canlyniad gorau i’n cenedl yng Nghymru.

First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. It clearly is an historic day—the Prime Minister triggering article 50 that begins the formal negotiation process after the referendum result in June last year.

I do take exception to your paragraph that talks about the Welsh Government being left out of the loop and not included in the negotiation process. I have to say that the Prime Minister herself has been to Wales five times, and David Davis himself has engaged many times with your good self and others in this Chamber, I might add, as has the Secretary of State for Wales. Whereas I look at the engagement the First Minister has sought to try and undertake with people who were on the majority vote after 23 June—neither he nor his Government have engaged at all with anyone who was on the majority side of the vote on 23 June and sit on this side of the Chamber. And so a bit of consistency, I think, would benefit the First Minister when he is throwing these allegations around. I also do regret bitterly the language that the First Minister used yesterday in First Minister’s questions: that he could see no money coming to agriculture after 2020, or structural funds. What evidence do you base that on, First Minister? Or are we to assume that that is official Labour Party policy and you are merely talking to Labour Party policy?

The letter today that the Prime Minister has sent to the President in Brussels clearly identifies the strands that she believes the negotiations should undertake. And I do hope that the First Minister does welcome the strands that the Prime Minister has identified in her letter, in particular with specific reference to Ireland and the peace process, and the significant discussions that will be require around that, and the importance of having parallel discussions and not isolating the settlement for the breakaway to the continuing relationships that the UK needs to develop with the EU. And I do hope that the First Minister will be able to endorse that sentiment; and indeed I do hope that he will able to endorse all the principles that are contained in the letter that the Prime minister has sent—and also the principles that the Prime Minister laid out in her Lancaster House speech, which clearly laid out 12 key principles that will form the basis of the negotiations over the next two years.

It is important that the UK Government does work with the devolved administrations to make sure that there is continuity in the message and continuity in the negotiations. I fully accept that, First Minister, and I will work tirelessly to make sure that does happen. And I do believe that there should be no—as the Prime Minister has clearly said—power grab or law grab back from any of the devolved administrations to Westminster. And the Prime Minister has clearly stated that, and, ultimately in her letter today, she clearly identifies the substantial passage of responsibilities and powers that she does see being transferred to the devolved administrations.

In your speech today, First Minister, you do identify—and I think it is a very relevant point to identity—the workings of the JMC, because there is a huge piece of work to be done domestically—as I have identified in other contributions that I’ve made within my speeches in this Chamber—about how the UK will function when we do come out of the European Union, and how—and it is my preferred model—the UK frameworks that would be put in place for agriculture, for structural funds and for HE funding will work on an equal basis to make sure that no one part of the UK is disproportionally affected by any changes that might come out. And so I would be grateful if the First Minister could give us a feeling of how he believes the JMC should develop in the coming weeks and months. Because I do think there’s a real danger that we do take our eye off what change we can effect in this Chamber, and the role that the Government here will have, by focusing too much on what’s going on in Brussels, while not focusing on what we need to be doing here in Wales to make sure that whatever negotiation and agreement arise out of that negotiation benefits all parts of the United Kingdom.

The other point I would like to make as well: What I think is really important is the great repeal Bill, the White Paper that will be published tomorrow. I notice that the First Minister does identify in his statement today that he will have much more to say on that, but it is important that, again, that is another area that we could have a huge impact on in making sure that Wales—in the transfer of responsibilities when they do come back from Brussels—that the right responsibilities do come back to this institution so that there is a positive dividend for devolution and a positive dividend for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England in that restribution of powers and responsibilities at the end of the two-year negotiation period.

The other point the First Minister rightly identifies is the focus on transitional arrangements that potentially might have to kick in if the two years do not prove sufficiently long enough to conclude the majority of the negotiations. What type of transitional arrangements does the First Minister and his Government have in mind that might be required? It’s one thing talking about transitional arrangements, it’s another thing understanding what exactly they might mean. And I do think, given that the Prime Minister clearly identifies in her letter today that she’s not looking for having a no-deal approach—as she points out, it is important the deal is concluded, but a deal that is fair to both partners working in these negotiations. Because this is not about putting Europe down and it should not be about putting the UK down. This is about making sure that we retain our strong links with Europe as partners in security, defence and economic opportunities, whilst recognising that sovereignty will return to these islands and those decisions will be taken within these islands, but reflecting, importantly, that the islands that the sovereignty will return to are not the islands that were the same in 1972 when we first went in to the European Union. We do have devolved Government, we do need to recognise that and the Prime Minister has given that commitment. But I do make that point that I opened my remarks on, First Minister: I believe the UK Government is sincere in its commitment to work with you and the other devolved administrations. It is a real shame that, over the last eight or nine months, you have not chosen to work with others in this Chamber.

Well, we look to work with elected Governments, of course, where we can. But in terms of some of the questions that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has raised, the problem—. He is right to say there’s been engagement; I’ve met with the Prime Minister and the engagement with David Davis has been good. I’m more than prepared to accept that. It’s not been good consistently across the UK Government, I have to say. Different approaches have been taken by different Ministers. Unfortunately, of course, as regards the letter, we were not aware of what was in the letter until it was actually announced in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As it happens, I thought the tone was right in terms of the way the letter was presented. It emphasised that we are fellow Europeans; that we should develop a deep and significant relationship with Europe, and I believe that is correct.

In terms of farming, I have to say to him that there are voices in DEFRA saying, ‘No subsidies after 2020’—I’ve heard them. There are people in his own party, like Boris Johnson, who take the view that WTO rules are fine. That is a 40 per cent tariff on what he produces on his farm: milk. Now, from his perspective, and he is one of many farmers, I have to say I don’t think any business can survive a 40 per cent tariff on dairy products while at the same time seeing a reduction in or the disappearance of subsidies. We have no guarantee beyond 2020 that anything will exist in terms of financial support for our farmers. If the UK Government was serious about that, it would say. All it has to say is this: that from 2020 onwards, the same amount of money will be available for our farmers and it will be distributed in the same way. That’s it. That resolves the issue. They have not done that. So, it’s perfectly right to point out to our farmers—and it was said to me over the weekend by farmers themselves that they are deeply concerned that this will see the end of farming subsidies and £260 million taken out of the rural economy.

Some of the issues that he has talked about: well, first of all he talked about the issue of devolution of powers. What is not clear is whether the UK Government have a definitive view on where powers rest when they return from the EU. They have said, on more than one occasion, that this institution will have more powers and there will be no clawback of existing powers, but I don’t believe they include the current EU frameworks as existing powers. That’s the problem for us. Now, if they say tomorrow that they are looking to replicate the current frameworks that exist in agriculture and fisheries—well, there is some merit in that in terms of the sense of it, but under no circumstances would we accept that they have a right to do so without the consent of this Chamber, or the consent, indeed, of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. If there are to be any frameworks of any kind, even if they simply replicate what already exists for the time being, that must be done with the consent of this elected Assembly that represents the people of Wales.

Could I turn to the JMC? The JMC is just no longer fit for purpose. The JMC is a talking shop, and has been since it existed. We cannot afford for this to carry on. If we are to have an internal single market within the UK—and he’s heard me say this several times—it’s important that the JMC becomes a council of Ministers where common frameworks are negotiated and agreed, which everyone signs up to. For example, if there’s going to be a new regime regarding state aid rules within the internal market of the UK, well, there’s sense in that, but they have to be agreed. Otherwise, from our perspective as a Government, we will not feel that we have any duty to observe them. Secondly, of course, where there are rules there has to be a court to enforce those rules. It’s the same in the US; it’s the same within the European single market; and the same thing would have to apply within the UK single market as well.

I did note what he said about talking about the right responsibilities being devolved to this place. Let me make it absolutely clear: my view is that anything that is devolved now will return from the EU straight here when we leave the EU. It will not go via Whitehall. It will not go to Whitehall to decide whether we get it or not. That includes agriculture, it includes fisheries, it includes issues of regional economic development, it includes environmental issues—those are issues that are devolved. Our devolution settlement does not say that these matters are devolved, except issues that are currently dealt with by the EU. And that would be a substantial change to the devolution settlement, and would go against the 2011 referendum. And I do not think that would be democratic, nor would it be right for the people of Wales.

Transitional arrangements are hugely important. I’m glad they’ve been recognised. Bluntly, I don’t think any negotiations will start before the autumn—there are French and German elections. Any deal has to be agreed by next autumn, not next March. Why? Because there is a ratification process within the EU, not just with the Commission, not just with the Parliament, but with 28, I think it is—possibly more than that—28 different Parliaments, all of whom would need to ratify any new treaty, and that takes months. That means that, by March 2019, if we are to avoid a cliff edge, there would have to be a fully ratified treaty in place. That is unlikely, I would suggest—highly unlikely is what I would say.

What is the alternative? Well, the UK could slip into European Economic Area membership in the meantime. Outside of the EU, that is true, yes; it’s correct to say part of the single market, yes; it’s correct to say still within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; and, yes, it’s correct to say with a contribution being made. It satisfies the result of the referendum, and is a way of providing a transitional arrangement until such time as a free trade agreement may or may not be agreed. I think that’s the sensible point.

I do agree with the observation that he made that the UK, when it leaves the EU, will not be the UK of 1972—a unitary state, with one Government—and that’s worth remembering. It’s worth remembering as well the UK was desperate to join the common market in the first place, because its economy was tanking. And those of us who remember the early 1970s, remember that the UK economy was in a real mess, particularly manufacturing, and had been for about 20 or 25 years at that point. But it is right to say that going back to the way things were, pre-1973, is not an option. We are now four nations, four Governments, and a partnership, to my mind, that needs to work towards a common purpose. That is recognised by the UK Government, and I welcome that, but it’s important that’s turned into reality.

Today will mark a profound day in the history of Wales. While Wales voted narrowly to leave the European Union, the UK Government’s intention is to take us out of the European single market as well. This is the largest economic and trading bloc in the world. For Wales, that single market is the destination for some 67 per cent of our exports, a higher level than any other part of the UK. And the UK Government’s intention to reach a free trade agreement will not put us in the same position as Norway, Iceland or Switzerland. I do hope that we will be in a position to debate the UK Government’s statement very soon. It will be essential for this Assembly to scrutinise that statement, of course, but I have some immediate questions now on the Welsh Government’s view.

First Minister, we need to be very wary of the UK Government’s actual intentions, compared to the warm words that we’ve seen from the Government earlier today. They admit that the UK will lose influence over the European economy. They speak of securing the freest possible trade in goods and services, but they admit that this won’t be a single market membership—it won’t comply with the four freedoms—and, therefore, it could lead to tariffs. I’d like to know the Labour Government’s position on this, please. Do you believe that a free trade agreement can lead to continued single market participation? Do you anticipate tariffs, and if so, which sectors do you think would be most at risk? What does today’s triggering of article 50 mean for Airbus, for Toyota, for manufacturing as a whole?

I want to turn now to the future of this Assembly, and the future of this nation. We should be under no illusions about today’s article 50 notice. It does not fulfil the wishes of the Scottish Government, nor, to my mind, the Welsh Government. It certainly doesn’t satisfy Plaid Cymru. The language from the UK Government is that they have an expectation of a significant increase in devolved powers. Anyone who takes that at face value needs a reality check. The UK Government, by definition, is in power. The balance of powers within the UK is within their remit, and it doesn’t have to be negotiated with EU institutions. The UK Government should be providing us with guarantees, not expectations. First Minister, what will the Welsh Government be doing to secure that increase in powers that we will need to protect and boost our economy as Brexit happens? Is it now time to make the case for a new Wales Bill, a Wales Bill that is actually fit for purpose?

The UK Government statement on article 50 contained no mention of agriculture or the environment. EU funds are only guaranteed up to 2020, meaning we need to secure the replacement arrangements during this Assembly term. First Minister, you stated in response to my questioning yesterday that agricultural subsidies could disappear. The need for certainty is now urgent. Plaid Cymru will not accept any loss of agricultural funding as a result of Brexit. We have been clear that Wales should receive the same funding and that we should have full policy control over how it is allocated. Are you prepared to fight for that funding in the coming period, First Minister?

Turning to the actual negotiations, the UK Government has indicated that the devolved Governments will be consulted. I haven’t been filled with confidence about how the Welsh Government has described the consultation that has happened to date. Today, we hear language about the United Kingdom negotiating with the EU as a single state, but there are now two years ahead of us, which are critical for the future of Wales. You say in your statement that today marks the beginning of serious negotiation. Given that you’re disappointed and frustrated with the JMC process, how will you now work with the UK Government? You’ve stated that you will not sulk from the sidelines, so how are you going to put the Welsh national interest on the agenda? And given that you didn’t see that letter beforehand, nor did you have any opportunity to input into it, can you honestly say that, up until this point, you have been listened to by the Prime Minister? You claim to see evidence of movement, but, First Minister, to us, it doesn’t look like there’s been much movement at all.

A number of questions there that were asked of me by the leader of Plaid Cymru. First of all, one of the ironies of the argument that I’ve heard from the Prime Minister is that the Scottish referendum should not take place because people don’t really know what they’re going to be voting on. Well, that’s exactly what happened last year. People were asked whether we should be members of the EU, but, of course, the detail and minutiae are not known. We don’t know what people’s view is of the single market, or whether we should be in the customs union or not, or their views, particularly, on immigration. We can guess what some people thought about it, of course, we heard it ourselves. But the problem is that now is the time for detail to be filled in, although my hope is that the pragmatists in the UK Government at the moment hold the upper hand over the nationalists, and that sense will prevail. I listened carefully to Phillip Hammond’s interview this morning on Radio 4. It was an interesting interview. He talked about—. He was frank about the challenges for the UK. You heard the Prime Minister say today that membership of the single market is not an option. Well, she and I will know—we’ve had this debate. It may be a semantic debate, but, nevertheless, it is a debate, as to whether participation is the same thing as membership. But for the Prime Minister to use the words ‘to rule out membership, but not rule out participation’, I actually thought was interesting, but we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe Kremlinology or Whitehallology only takes you so far.

With regard to immigration—again, I’ve said this before, and I welcome what the Prime Minister said today about immigration being important, particularly, of course, ensuring that people are able to come to the UK and use their skills. And as I’ve said before, there will be no control over immigration. It never was going to be—it was always a myth, because of the open border with the Republic of Ireland. You cannot control your immigration if you have an open border. It’s an oxymoron just by definition.

In terms of the free trade agreement, the problem I think with the free trade agreement is that, if you look at FTAs across the world, they almost always exclude food, agriculture and fisheries. They are always outside of the agreement, and they are, therefore, subject to tariffs. And my great worry is that we end up with some kind of agreement with the EU that excludes agriculture and fisheries, where tariffs are imposed. There are other dangers in having free trade agreements with, for example, Australia or New Zealand. They are not in Wales’s interest at all. Replacing a market of 500 million with a market of 4.8 million in New Zealand, while, at the same time, allowing New Zealand lamb to flow unhindered into Wales must be great for New Zealand, but very bad for Wales, and we would oppose tooth and nail any free trade agreement with New Zealand or Australia, or any other country that threatens our farming industry.

In terms of the effect on Airbus and Toyota, there are two issues that those organisations are concerned about. First of all, tariffs—increasing their costs, but, secondly, of course, their ability to move workers around. It’s literally the case for Airbus that they need to move people from Broughton to Toulouse within a day. They don’t want to be playing around with visas and trying to deal with the paperwork. That will inevitably mean that Broughton is at a disadvantage in the years to come. So, there must be the ability to shift people around in the course of a day or two so that they can work in another country or within the European Union without the need to go through unnecessary paperwork.

Well, in terms of devolved powers, I can only read what I’ve seen thus far. The proof of the pudding will come in the eating, of course. We’ll have to wait and see what happens in terms of devolved powers in the future.

I think that one of the issues as well that the UK has to be wary of is that the EU was actually, or had become, part of the glue that held the UK together. Without that, then it’s hugely important to restructure the UK in order for it to be robust in the future. The case, for example, of Northern Ireland—the only identity that people shared in Northern Ireland was a European one. Beyond that, they have nothing in common in terms of an identity. We must be careful, then, that Northern Ireland doesn’t find itself staring, or looking backwards, into what happened before. There’s no need for that to happen, but we must be wary of that.

Wales Bill—there has to be another Wales Bill. I mean, the one we’ve got now is something that we can use for April next year, but it’s far from sustainable—we know that. The issues such as policing, jurisdiction and air passenger duty, just to name three issues, are not resolved—they need to be resolved. There is no reason why, in the future, Wales should be treated in a second-class fashion compared to Scotland.

In terms of subsidies, the issues that I’ve already mentioned are important, that is we need to see certainty beyond 2020. We need to see the allocation ring-fenced at a UK level and then, of course, us getting our Welsh allocation. It cannot be Barnettised, otherwise we get an enormous cut through Barnett; it cannot come with strings attached either. By all means, we can negotiate and agree a common framework—fine, but by negotiation and not by imposition. But I am concerned that what might happen to that money is that it will stick to fingers in Whitehall rather than come to Wales at the moment.

The other issue that worries me about farming is this: for years, agricultural subsidies have been outside of the normal budget process. I believe that agricultural subsidies need to be ring-fenced and a ring fence agreed by all four nations, otherwise, every year, in this Chamber, the debate will be as to whether farmers get more money or the health service gets more money. I just don’t think that’s in the interest of agriculture, to be honest. I think it should be taken out of that arena.

In terms of negotiation, as I’ve said before, the JMC is not fit for purpose. If the UK is going to survive, it has to adapt. It can adapt, but that does mean a proper council of Ministers with a proper decision-making process and a dispute-resolution process that is independent, because how else could any of us have faith in it if it carried on with the current situation, where, if there is a dispute between ourselves and the UK Treasury, the dispute is resolved by the UK Treasury? That’s hardly an independent and disinterested system for dealing with disputes. Tomorrow will give us more of an idea of the direction of travel and, of course, over the course of the next week, I’m sure, there’ll be ample opportunity, as there should be, to examine very carefully the issues that arise over the next few days.

Can I regret that the First Minister, yet again, has failed to rise to the level of events? Does he not see that today actually is a great day for the United Kingdom, and a great day for Wales, because what we’re seeing here is the beginning of a process of the restoration of democratic self-Government to Assemblies such as this, where we’ll have Ministers who make decisions and are held to account for them, and if we don’t like what they do, we can vote against them? That’s a privilege also that the people will have on a regular basis in the form of elections. So, is that surely not an unambiguous gain for this country? Of course, I don’t expect the Welsh regionalist party opposite—the European regionalist party, which is the excuse for the Welsh nationalists opposite, to understand that. They would far rather that we were governed from Brussels than from Cardiff. Surely, the Welsh Labour Government should take a more sensible view.

One of the reasons why—if this is the case—the First Minster has not been listened to by the Prime Minister, no doubt, is because he’s still refighting the referendum campaign and he is the voice of doom and gloom. He makes Gordon Brown look positively cheerful in comparison. He sees none of the opportunities and all of the potential problems. Nicola Sturgeon uses the process for political posturing for a referendum that she actually doesn’t want to have because she knows she will lose it. Surely, if we want to play a full part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government about the future after we leave the EU, the time to do that, on a positive basis, is now, and not to constantly harp on about the negatives and the uncertainties that exist, come what may.

It is somewhat rich for the First Minister, as the leader of the Conservatives pointed out, to complain about not being involved in the process when he has resolutely set his face like flint against the involvement of other parties, other than Plaid Cymru, in the process of negotiating a common position that Wales could have vis-à-vis the UK.

As regards full and unfettered access to the single market, insofar as that means free trade, he knows that the Government is already committed to trying to obtain that objective, and it’s in the mutual interest of both parties—the EU and the UK—that it should be secured. We have a massive trade deficit with the EU amounting to £60 billion a year. In cars alone we have a £20 billion a year deficit with Germany, so there is a massive bargaining counter that we have in our hands in the negotiating process, yet all the First Minister can say is that we won’t be able to sell any cars because there might potentially be a 10 per cent tariff on cars. Well, we’ve already seen an 18 per cent devaluation in the pound in the last 12 months anyway, which more than compensates for that compared to where we were last time.

Of course there will be problems for agriculture in the way that he describes, but it will be within our competence here in this place to decide how to deal with those. He will be the leader of an administration that will have complete control over agriculture as a result of our leaving the EU, and I wholly agree with him—I wholly agree with the point that he made—that there should be an immediate repatriation of powers from Brussels to Cardiff where that is appropriate under the devolution settlement we already have, and that there should be no blockage in Whitehall or Westminster in the meantime.

As regards a transition process lasting more than two years, a lot of people will see that as a thinly disguised ploy to try to keep us in the EU for even longer than the process that is set out under the Lisbon treaty. There should be no prospect whatsoever of elongating the negotiating process, because Parkinson’s law might then come into play, whereby the work expands to fill the time available and an infinite amount of time will mean an infinite extension to the time that we remain members of the European Union.

There’s plenty of time now for the Welsh Labour Government to develop lines of policy that they would like to see. For example, in agriculture, what kind of subsidy regime do we want to have in Wales after we leave the EU? That’ll be something that will be completely within his control. I do agree with him that we need to sort out the funding of future policy, and I agree with both Plaid Cymru and the Government that we should have every single penny that has been sourced via Brussels—all British taxpayers’ money in any case. Every single penny of that should come to Wales, whether it’s for agricultural support, structural funds or whatever, and it should then be for the Welsh Labour Government to set its own priorities in the light of that. The Welsh people can take their own view on whether those priorities are right or not at the time of the next Assembly elections.

As regards the constitution, I again wholly agree with him that the devolution settlement must not in any way be undermined. But, what is happening now through the triggering of article 50 is that we’re actually enhancing the devolution settlement—we’re actually enhancing the powers of this Assembly and enhancing the power of Welsh Ministers to govern ourselves in a way—. This is the paradox of the so-called nationalists’ position, of course: they don’t want to have democratic institutions such as the National Assembly for Wales deciding what our environmental policy is going to be, what our agricultural policy is going to be and so many other areas of policy that are currently the preserve of the European Union.

So, I say to the First Minister: do cheer up. This is a great opportunity for us, as well as a challenge. Of course, there are challenges and opportunities in life in general, but surely the opportunity to strike free trade agreements with the 85 per cent of the global economy that is outside the EU—. Given that the United States takes 22 per cent of Welsh exports, for example, is there not a great opportunity there to plug into the process of negotiation on free trade agreements in order to ensure that the UK Government, negotiating on our behalf in a unitary state insofar as we still are one, takes Welsh interests fully into account? They’re unlikely to do that if he carries on with the dire dirge of doom and gloom that we regularly get, day in and day out, in Wales. He was at it yesterday in question time, and today: ‘WTO rules will be a disaster for Wales.’ Well, the average tariff under WTO rules is about 3.5 per cent. Admittedly, they would be higher for certain sectors that are important for Wales, such as automotive and agriculture, which is, generally speaking, as the First Minister said, not the subject of agreement in free trade agreements. But, surely, the opportunity from being positive rather than negative is to play a real part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government and if he carries on as he is, then he will continue to be ignored.

Well, I have to say to the leader of UKIP: he describes the day as the day of the return of democratic self-government; if Scotland votes ‘out’ in a referendum, I wonder if he would say that about Scotland. But, it’s a strange point to make in that regard.

The UK never lost its sovereignty. It always kept its sovereignty. It’s a sovereign state and it still shares its—. It always will share its sovereignty. It’s a member of national organisations that are multistate organisations where sovereignty is shared with those organisations, otherwise you’d never have any treaties, you shouldn’t be a member of the UN, and you shouldn’t be a member of any supranational organisations. It’s cloud-cuckoo-land to suggest that the UK or any other state, for that example, is in any way wholly sovereign in the classical sense of the nineteenth-century.

There is some irony—and I know this annoyed Plaid Cymru Members, but to me it caused me some amusement—but I never thought I’d see the day when UKIP would accuse Plaid Cymru of not being Welsh or nationalist enough. Given that five years ago, UKIP as a party was robustly anti-Welsh and robustly anti-devolution, there is some irony there, isn’t there, in terms of that? Yes, things have changed. There’s no doubt about that.

In terms of refighting the campaign, the campaign has finished; that was last year. This is a question of what we do next. I have to say to the leader of UKIP that I’ve heard nothing from him constructive at all. We have accepted the result. We’ve put forward concrete proposals. We’ve put forward a White Paper. We’ve put forward proposals for the internal governance of the UK. What I get from him is, ‘It’ll all be fine.’ No concrete proposals at all. I look forward to seeing them when, and if, they get round in UKIP—if they can agree with each other, that is—to producing them.

The other thing I have to say to him is that I disagree fundamentally with him that a free trade agreement will cover everything. It just will not do it. He must understand, surely, that the European Council of Ministers represents 27 different countries. The ratification process for any deal will require the ratification of some national parliaments and, indeed, some regional ones, particularly in Belgium. The ratification process, however, does not include BMW and Mercedes-Benz, who do not have a seat on the table of the European Council of Ministers and will not have the opportunity to influence what the entire European Union does in terms of its final trade arrangements.

In terms of tariffs, I can say to him that the average tariff is 5.5 per cent. There are hundreds of them: there are tariffs on hats and umbrellas. But more seriously, there are tariffs on automotive, aircraft components and most heavily on food, most heavily on food, particularly dairy products. I cannot believe that he believes that the answer to the imposition of tariffs and their effect is to crash the currency. Keep the pound low, make it really expensive for us to import goods, send inflation through the roof, but that’s fine because that will offset tariffs. That is not a sound or sustainable economic policy.

In terms of the WTO, again, he seems to think that crashing out with WTO rules is a good thing. The UK is just 60 million people. The European Union is far, far bigger as a market. We will be hurt hugely by the imposition of tariffs. Our manufacturers will find that their goods are more expensive. Apart from the financial barrier, there is a psychological barrier. If you were an investor from another large economy, why would you invest in a country where there was a tariff barrier in place between one of your factories and the other? That is clearly not going to happen. The automotive industry tells us that, the aircraft industry tells us that. I wonder who he’s speaking to when he takes the views of people on board.

I do look forward to the £350 million a week that will now spent on the NHS across the UK. That has been completely forgotten about, and conveniently. He reminds me of somebody who is part of a group of people who threw a brick through the window and now are criticising the people who are trying to put the window back together again by saying that the window was never broken in the first place or that we’re putting it back together in the wrong way, or even some of his party are arguing that they never put the brick through the window in the first place. The reality is that there are some of us who are trying to move on, some of us who are trying to ensure that the UK has a future outside of the EU, that Wales is not damaged as a result of leaving the EU, but his party has come forward with no proposals at all—no proposals at all. Even yesterday—this is a good one—there was a leaflet saying that UK fishermen would have access to a 200 mile fishing zone. In case he hasn’t noticed, the UK is within 200 miles of other countries all around the UK. There is no 200 mile fishing zone. That only exists if you have a 200 mile gap between you and another country, and that doesn’t exist as far as the UK is concerned. I have to say, the nonsense still continues with UKIP, but I offer him the chance to come forward in the next few weeks with something sensible and concrete that we can debate and examine.

Could I ask one very straightforward question based on the contributions already from opposition spokesmen? Has the Prime Minister given any guarantee at all on funding for agriculture and rural development up until 2020, and that that funding would be passed for Wales? And my second question is: in response to the comments last week by one of the prime ‘leave’ campaigners—now somewhat in exile himself, Michael Gove—that this was now an opportunity to diminish or strip out entirely the European habitats and wildlife directives—and bearing in mind the implications of that for Wales, let alone the ecological coherence of networks around the UK and EU—what are his thoughts on the idea that this is now an opportunity to engage in a race to the bottom of environmental standards?

I can say to the Member that guarantees are in place until 2020 but not beyond. That’s the problem. Beyond that, there are no guarantees of a single penny and that’s why we need certainty with regard to that. Michael Gove, I’m afraid, represents a section of the Conservative Party who are minimal government enthusiasts. They will sit quite happily on the right wing of the Republican party, I suspect, in the US. They see things like environmental protection as a burden on business. I can say that, for example, the habitats directive will be a matter entirely for this institution to decide what it wishes to do with in terms of environmental regulation in the future. But I can certainly guarantee that despite the views of Michael Gove, what we will not be doing is going back to the days of high pollution levels in our rivers and making Wales a less green and attractive place than it is now.

We are out of time on this statement. I have many speakers left uncalled. I will call a few further contributions as long as they promise to be short and concise. David Melding, set the tone.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Last week, First Minister, the president of the Committee of the Regions, Markku Markkula, said that the Committee of the Regions would provide the EU’s chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, with a picture of the evolving situation at regional level. Mr Markkula also said in a debate in the Committee of the Regions last week, and I quote, we must work to protect well-established ties between regional and local authorities in the EU and the UK’.

It seems to me this is turning in a positive direction and it’s important that we use our membership of the Committee of the Regions to ensure that those who are negotiating on behalf of the EU get a full picture of the situation here. I wonder, as well as the representatives, whether the Welsh Government will perhaps meet with Mr Markkula and his colleagues.

Well, I’m more than happy, assuming a meeting is possible, but it’s absolutely right to say that, in keeping with what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that we are not leaving Europe. It’s hugely important that we retain and strengthen our ties with organisations across Europe—that is in Wales’s interests and it’s in the interests of all people across Europe to co-operate in such a way.

I thank the First Minister for his statement and I must say, even though I’m unsurprised, I still find it remarkable that in this so-called family of nations, the democratically elected First Minister of this country is excluded from drafting a letter to mark our withdrawal from the European Union.

My questions to the First Minister today are regarding the process itself, but in terms of the process, not to lose sight of the things that we can still lead the initiative on. So, the First Minister has spoken about the reformation of the JMC into a proper council of Ministers with independent arbitration. Does he plan to publish further detail on that and how the UK internal market can be governed in a fair and democratic way post Brexit? But, not just the structures within the UK as well, because he’s rightly pointed to the relationship that we have with Ireland and the common travel area. Does he agree with me that it’s time now for us to look at reforming the British-Irish Council so that it more closely resembles the Nordic council model where, of course, you have a mixture of sovereign states, devolved territories, EU member states, non-EU member states and so on?

And finally, does the First Minister share my anger that as things stand, only two parliaments in these islands will have a meaningful vote on the final treaty with the European Union—the Westminster Parliament and the Irish Parliament, as an EU 27 member state—and that parliamentarians in Wallonia will have a greater say on the future of this country than the parliamentarians of Wales?

Yes, I do, and he will have heard me say many times it’s my belief that any treaty should be ratified by the four Parliaments and not just by one, for any number of reasons, including the fact that any agreement may well affect areas that are wholly devolved, such as agriculture and fisheries. It wouldn’t be right in principle for us to be bound by something that we had no role in negotiating nor agreeing. I think that’s a fundamental principle that is well known in Belgium. It’s not yet known in the UK, but it needs to be known in as a principle in the UK.

In terms of relationships with other countries, Ireland will be an important partner for us in the future. We have a maritime border with the republic and those links will be strengthened in the future, and we will look to work with our friends in the Irish Government for mutual interest.

With the British-Irish Council, it’s in a curious position in the sense that one of the members of the British-Irish Council will be remaining in the EU. There are some issues as to whether Ireland can be part of discussions on the EU, because of its EU membership, in the British Irish Council—that’s complicated. There are three other members that are not members of the EU, but are members of the customs union and may well find themselves hauled out of the customs union without being asked—the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. They never had a vote on it, but they will be told by the UK Government, ‘You’re leaving, like it or not’. They have no means of renegotiating entry into the customs union, because they have no control or power over foreign affairs. So, their position is even worse in the sense that they will be taken out of a trading arrangement without their people ever being asked their opinion on it. So, there are a number of complications that will need to be dealt with via the JMC process and the BIC.

In terms of the detail, yes, we’re more than happy to publish details, but he will know the principles that I’ve already explained, which are: a council of Ministers, four Governments agreeing frameworks on the way forward, and also, of course, an independent adjudication process, so that we can all have faith that there is a trade court or other body that is policing the agreed rules of the single market fairly. That’s the way it works in the European Union, that’s the way it works in the United States, that’s the way it should work in the UK.

And, finally, Eluned Morgan.

Does the First Minister agree with me that today is a profoundly sad day for the nation and also for our children and our children’s children? And, of course, those who will pay the highest price for article 50 will be those who can least afford it.

[Inaudible.]

I wonder if the First Minister could tell me his interpretation—[Interruption.]

I think the Member would like to apologise for the remark, which I also heard. Very quickly.

Llywydd, I was listening to the Member, and—[Interruption.]

No. Just apologise. However it was meant, just apologise for how it was heard.

Well, what was unparliamentary about the remark?

Are you refusing to apologise?

Well, what is there to apologise for?

You are very well aware, Neil Hamilton, of the remark you just made towards Eluned Morgan. Just very politely apologise for—

Well, in deference to you, Llywydd, I will apologise for whatever remark I am supposed to have made.

Thank you for that. Eluned Morgan.

I wouldn’t mind a deference to me, actually. It’s all right deferring to the Presiding Officer, but I’d like an apology as well.

I’ll accept the apology on your behalf. Carry on with your comments.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I’d like to ask the First Minister about his interpretation of the letter that was sent. One of the points made was that the Prime Minister said that she would fulfil her responsibilities as a member state. Does that mean that the UK Government will cough up in terms of commitments entered into with other member states, and can we, therefore, expect to pay a large bill?

I just wondered whether the First Minister would also agree with me—. The Prime Minister has said previously that she wants to represent the views of every single individual in the United Kingdom. I’d just like to make it clear that she will not be representing my views, and I wonder if she’ll be representing yours.

Well, it’s always unwise for a politician to suggest that they can represent the views of every single individual, ranging from the far left to the crazy right in that regard. But I think what she would’ve wanted to say is that she would look to represent people as widely as possible; it’s not for me to talk on her behalf.

Nothing was said about what financial commitments there might be and how they might be resolved. They will form part of the negotiation, and that is a matter for the UK and the EU to resolve. But, of course, from our perspective, it seems that, if there are any financial obligations, if they’re not going to be discharged then that’s not a particularly good start to any negotiations in the future. But these are matters that will need to be resolved.

The greatest concern I have at this moment in time is that the UK will have a team that is inexperienced up against an EU team that’s highly experienced. The UK has no experience of negotiating these kinds of deals, and so I actually think it’s in the UK’s interests for this process to take more time in order for that team to get the experience that it needs. Trying to get a deal done within a year with an inexperienced team I think is bad, and those who know—and I’ve spoken to those who have been involved in trade negotiations—will say that to get a fully functioning free trade agreement takes between six and seven years. It’s not a year process. And that’s where two parties have already agreed to talk to each other rather than the one saying, ‘We’re going to talk to you’, and the other not being a willing partner in those negotiations, although a partner that is now engaging in those negotiations.

So, my great problem with all this is that I think there are realists, but there are those who still take the view that all of this is easy, that the world will fall at Britain’s feet, and everything will be fine in the end. It won’t be; this is going to take a lot of hard work. The view of the people must be respected, I understand that, but, in order for people not to be hurt economically, in order for Wales not to suffer job losses, it’s hugely important that we put in place a structure that is in Wales’s interest, the UK’s interest, and the EU’s interest. I take the Prime Minister at her word this afternoon when she said she wanted a deep relationship with Europe. I take her at her word when she described herself and others as fellow Europeans. We must reach out the hand of friendship even as we leave, and that is in the interests of both parties.

I thank the First Minister.