It’s when we see the Bill itself. That will give us a better idea of what the UK Government is thinking. When we see what is the self-described great repeal Bill, then, of course, it will be available to this Assembly, and indeed the Welsh Government, to offer an opinion at that time. But I would expect there to be greater clarity, whether that is positive or negative, when that Bill is actually published.

The question is asked, of course: what happens if no agreement can be reached? We accept that, in those circumstances, there must be a backstop arrangement. We believe that the answer is an independent form of arbitration. I’ve said before that we need to ensure that if we have an internal single market with rules, that those rules are agreed, not imposed, and secondly that there’s an independent adjudication mechanism such as a court—it could be the Supreme Court—that polices the rules of that internal single market. We’re open to further discussion about this and what it might look like in practice, but what we can’t accept is that the UK Government should impose itself in areas like agriculture and fisheries, which are fully devolved, in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh people, as expressed through a referendum and legislated for by the UK Parliament itself. It’s further been suggested that there is a case for replicating, through UK legislation, current frameworks provided by EU rules in order to—it is said—provide legal and administrative certainty. If nothing changes, then we will exit the EU in March 2019—it is said—in accordance with the terms of article 50. There are genuine issues about workable arrangements as we transition from EU membership to life outside. That’s why we included a chapter on that in the White Paper.

We note that the UK Government talks about working closely with the devolved administrations, as they say they want to deliver an approach that works for the whole and each part of the UK. I couldn’t disagree with that. We want to work with the UK and our devolved counterparts on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem. The UK Government can help to build trust in two ways. First, it needs to recognise that—to adapt a well-known phrase—devolution means devolution; what is already devolved stays devolved. And second, that any measures designed as transitional should clearly be labelled as such through the adoption of sunset clauses. It’s hopelessly inadequate for the UK Government to make vague promises about potential future devolution and expect this Assembly simply to fall in line, especially when they’re talking about competences that we believe are already devolved to us.

We know, however, Llywydd, that powers mean little or nothing unless they are accompanied by the resources to match the policy. I haven’t forgotten—and the people of Wales won’t forget—that promises were made that Wales wouldn’t be a penny worse off as a result of exiting the EU. We will hold those who made that promise to that promise, because Wales gets around £680 million annually in EU funding. We do not expect that money to stick to someone’s back pocket in Whitehall. We expect that money to come to Wales. We expect that money to come to underpin our rural and regional economy and, of course, other programmes like Horizon 2020, from the point of departure from the EU.

Now, we do want to work constructively. We want a place in the next stage of negotiations. The future of the UK outside the EU is as much a matter for this Government and this Assembly as it is for the UK Government and Parliament. The UK Government now has a chance to live up to its rhetoric and genuinely move forward in ways that bind us together in the common cause of achieving the best EU exit terms possible—the creation of a reformed, dynamic, democratic UK outside the EU—but that will require a fundamental change of Whitehall mindset. If they grasp that chance, then of course we can look to work together as equal partners within the UK in the future.

I turn, finally, to the amendments put forward by UKIP. It will come as no surprise, I am sure, to those that proposed these amendments, that we will today not accept any of them. For most of them, the world is seen from a very different perspective if you are a member of UKIP than from our perspective. But one I will refer to now, before dealing with the others, perhaps, as I respond, is amendment 6, and that’s on the issue of tariffs. The amendment fails to recognise that tariffs are taxes on consumers. The cost of a tariff is simply passed on to the consumer of that good: £8 billion a year in tariffs is money raised by the UK Government from UK consumers, not from those who export into the UK. That is a tax of some £120 or £130 a year per head that would have to be paid as a Brexit tax, in effect, by each man, woman and child within the UK. We do not think that that is a sensible way forward.