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.