The next item on our agenda is the statement by the First Minister on Brexit and devolution: securing Wales’s future. And I call on the First Minister to make his statement—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Just about everyone can agree that leaving the European Union is a step of massive importance for Wales and the UK as a whole, and in a whole range of ways. The EU we will leave is much bigger and more complex than the Common Market, which we joined all those years ago, and it’s precisely because of this that leaving is an even bigger step than joining was. So, the challenges are many. They have been thrown into sharper relief by the general election result, and this, in my judgment, makes it inevitable that the UK Government will have to radically reshape its approach to this most crucial issue of the day, and, dare I say it, move closer to the balanced and coherent position set out in the joint Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru white paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’.

Of course, I welcome the fact that the first meeting between the UK Government and the European Commission yesterday went well, but this is just the first step on a long and complicated journey. Members will be clear that, for the Welsh Government, it is securing jobs and the economic prosperity of our nation that is right at the top of our agenda for Brexit. That has not changed and will not change. But today I want to focus on the implications of leaving the EU for devolution, and for the future governance of the UK.

Llywydd, first off, while acknowledging the result of last year’s referendum, let’s also remind ourselves that devolution is itself the product of two referendums here in 1997 and again in 2011: in the second of these, two thirds of voters voted in favour of the Assembly acquiring powers over primary legislation.

I hope we can agree across this Chamber that devolution, as endorsed in those referendums, represents the settled will of the Welsh people and is not something to be treated lightly by the UK Government, any more than it could ignore the EU referendum result. We roundly reject the UK Government’s assertion in the White Paper it published before the election that devolution is in any sense premised on UK’s membership of the EU. On the contrary, the demand for devolution is a freely expressed ambition of the Welsh people and the fact of EU membership at the time when devolution began was, in that sense, a purely practical feature of our arrangements. The task now, therefore, is to acknowledge the force of the various referendums by finding new arrangements for governing the UK that give practical effect to Brexit while taking full account of the permanence of devolution in the UK constitution.

The document before us today, ‘Brexit and Devolution’, builds on ideas we first tabled in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, published jointly with Plaid Cymru back in January, and is the first of a series that will explore key issues arising from Brexit. There’s much to think about and discuss and that’s why we aim to stimulate debate here in the Assembly and beyond.

Leaving the EU will create new governance challenges here. We don’t yet know for certain how far, if at all, we will continue to align UK regulatory networks with those of the EU after Brexit, or whether we will remain in a customs union with the EU. But it’s certain that co-ordination of policies, which has previously taken place in Brussels, will, at least to some extent, need to be developed at home.

We readily recognise, for example, the need, in the exercise of our own powers, to work with the other administrations to develop binding UK-wide frameworks in a number of devolved areas to prevent friction entering into our own internal UK market. Four wholly different and incompatible animal health regimes, for example, would clearly be in no-one’s interests. Equally, there are UK competences in which we will have a clear Welsh interest.

So, we will need new and better ways for the various Governments to work together. But the existing consultative JMC machinery is simply not fit for the new task in hand. The right way to manage this business is through new and refreshed inter-governmental machinery. The four Governments must sit around a table to negotiate and agree binding UK frameworks in devolved areas where these are necessary, or in the short term each agree, of our own volition, not to make any changes to the current EU-derived frameworks, if that is needed.

The same machinery should facilitate discussion and agreement on non-devolved polices in which we will clearly have an interest, such as state aid and, particularly if we are outside a customs union with the EU, international trade. We propose in our paper a UK council of Ministers, along lines partially similar to the EU version. If it’s possible for 28 Governments to reach decisions in common areas, it should certainly be possible for the four Governments here in the UK to do so.

This is not an attempt to increase the powers of the Government or this Assembly. Again, the previous UK Government’s White Paper gave a wholly misleading impression that, in the work of developing frameworks at EU level that applied to devolved policies, such as the common agricultural policy or environmental policies, the UK Government alone determined the UK position. That’s simply not the case.

On the contrary, the UK Government is obliged by the memorandum of understanding, updated and ratified by this Chamber in 2013, to consult with the devolved administrations and develop a UK position that reflects agreement between all four administrations. It would be ironic if, in a UK in which we have, as it was put, taken back control from Brussels, the devolved institutions have less, not more, influence over the frameworks in which we operate.

If the UK Government is open to developing machinery that enables the four Governments to take forward common business in a collaborative way, they will find in the Welsh Government a willing partner. But let me be clear, if they do not, if they wish to impose frameworks or to legislate in Westminster to put new constraints on this Assembly’s powers and competence, we will resist them every step of the way, using all the tools available to us. As I’ve written to the Prime Minister, this is a fight that, now, of all times, she does not need.

Let me reiterate: we want legislation at Westminster, whether that be the great repeal Bill or an equivalent, which is a success in achieving the UK Government’s goals—providing legislative continuity and certainty and ensuring that, on day one after we leave the EU, our regulatory environment is identical to that of the EU. That is our first ambition.

But we require such legislation both to respect devolution and trigger the joint working we hope will facilitate a constructive collective future. If it fails to do this, if it tramples on devolution, then we will, of course, have to respond forcefully and negatively, and we are already in the process of developing our options for this eventuality. One primary responsibility of the Welsh Government, and indeed this Assembly, is to uphold the devolution settlement for which our people voted. I hope that message is heard clearly and noted in Whitehall.

We also think the time is right for a convention on the future of the United Kingdom. It’s an idea I have canvassed previously ad nauseam, as have others, but it is a matter of increased urgency now. Leaving the EU is a big step that requires a big response at home. It’s a natural position from which to think afresh about what kind of country and what kind of union we want to be for the long term. The convention should involve all voices, all political parties, civil society and all parts of the UK. And as I have said many times, the Welsh Government has plenty of ideas but no monopoly of them.

Let me be clear, then, Llywydd: I’m positive about our union. I want the UK to be flourishing, dynamic and well governed. I want the inter-governmental relationships among the four administrations to promote the dynamism that our union should show. Acting in the name of Welsh voters, we deserve something more than a grudging transactional relationship based on a bare minimum of fig-leaf consultation. Each administration needs to respect the political legitimacy and the mandate of the others in approaching this debate. Through discussion and co-operation, good ideas can develop into better ideas, and everyone wins. An effective United Kingdom helps all and hurts none.

It’s true to say, Llywydd, that the UK remains deeply divided. The way to heal those divisions is through respect and working through problems together—trying to see other people’s point of view. Secrecy, lack of consultation, imposition of diktats from the centre—these will do nothing to build the mature, dynamic, multifaceted and outward-facing UK that we can be. The paper we have published is intended to contribute to the thinking now needed to meet that challenge, and I commend it to the Assembly.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, indeed, thank you for early sight of that statement that was made available to the parties before we started Plenary today. I did notice that in the last paragraph you talked about ‘secrecy, lack of consultation, imposition of diktats from the centre’. I have to say that, sitting on this side of the Chamber, I almost feel like saying to you, First Minister, ‘Look in the mirror and there you will find that description’. Because, certainly, when it comes to having discussions over the last 12 months on these important issues, you really have not reached out across the political divide in this Chamber. As I’ve said many times before, this Chamber really does act in its best interests when that political consensus can be reached. I have said in response to many statements that you have given over the last 12 months, and in debates in this Chamber, that we stand ready to engage positively in those discussions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

If I may invoke the name of the former First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, I do know full well that in previous Assemblies there was that consensus and there was that political will to engage across the political divide back when he was First Minister, around the Government of Wales Act 2006 and around the constitutional changes that were happening in the Assembly in its early days. I do draw your attention again to the offer that is made to you to reach out across the political divide and have that discussion, because it is a little rich, reading this statement today, when the actions you’ve undertaken reinforce that polarisation that you profess to abhor in politics, if you actually want to try to reach a consensus on some of these major issues that do need resolution across the whole of the United Kingdom.

We all want to make sure that when we do come out of the Brexit negotiations, the deal that emerges is a deal that reinforces the ties that make this union of ours so great—the union of the United Kingdom—but that it is a union that is fit for the twenty-first century and not one that is looking back to a way that these islands might have been governed in the 1950s and 1960s. I stand ready, as does my group and my party, to make sure that that does happen. Ultimately, we will succeed if we work together in that aim.

I would also ask the First Minister to confirm exactly what the agreement is that Plaid and the Labour Government have reached, because as we saw in First Minister’s questions, there clearly is a difference. If you can’t get that simple basic starting point right, what credibility, what weight, can be given to the White Paper and the document in particular that you have brought forward? That can be a basis for discussion—in fairness, there was an agreement there, but anyone who witnessed that discussion here in First Minister’s questions was left bemused, to say the least, that there is such a chasm that seems to have opened up between two parties that put their signature on a document that you, in this statement, constantly refer to as the basis for the negotiating position.

So, could you use your response to me today to give complete clarity as to exactly where that agreement lies and what the understanding is, from your point of view, as to what that agreement will deliver around the single market and access to the single market?

I would also like very much to understand what part of the Lancaster House speech that the First Minister disagrees with, which the Prime Minister brought forward. She endorsed 12 principles that are the negotiating principles that were started yesterday in the negotiations, and on this side of the house, we believe those are 12 principles that need to be taken forward in the negotiations that will clearly put those negotiations on the footing that they need to be to offer a sound tramline for us to develop the agreement that we want to see at the end of these two years. And I do notice in this entire statement—. In fairness, you are referring to your own document, but surely the document should have some reference to what the UK Government’s key negotiating lines are. And those 12 principles are fundamental to the negotiations as they proceed.

I endorse entirely what you say about the Joint Ministerial Committee, and I’ve said this before that it is not an organisation—. Not that I’ve ever sat on that committee, but, in fairness, observing it from afar, and observing references made by politicians from across the political divide, it is clearly not fit for purpose, and it is not a vehicle that can actually deal with the dispute resolutions and the discussions that will follow after Brexit and the agreement. And I do believe that we do need greater coherence in developing a more robust framework for the devolved administrations and the UK Government to work through. And I’d be grateful to understand whether the First Minister sees any light and progress along the road to making sure that we do have—and I will call it the JMC at this point because that’s what we’ll understand it is—a successor body to achieve the outcome that we want, once the Brexit negotiations have concluded.

I agree entirely with the First Minister that there is a positive future for this country, but it does depend on politicians rising to the challenge and rising to the opportunities that lie ahead. And on this side of the Chamber, we certainly will be rising to the challenge, and rising to the opportunity that is there. And, again, I reiterate the point that I hope that other politicians, from whatever political persuasion, will do exactly the same.

Can I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments? Can I say to him: I listened to what he said about looking to come to a common position, but it would certainly help me if I were to understand what his position is on some of the more fundamental aspects? I know he was somebody who advocated that the UK should leave the EU. That is there for all to see. But does he believe that we should retain full and unfettered access to the single market? Does he reject any idea of tariff or non-tariff barriers? Does he accept that there is a need perhaps to modify freedom of movement, but not to end it completely? What is his view in terms of the border between north and south in Ireland? What is his view then in terms of the maritime border between Wales and Ireland and how that would operate? What is his view on the UK being inside of the customs union or not? If it’s outside of the customs union, then that border with the UK and Ireland cannot operate as a seamless border. Does he believe that the transitional arrangements, and they will be needed, should be such that we should consider European Economic Area membership, or European free trade area membership in the short term? All these questions I’ve not heard him express a view on. I invite him to do so, but what I do know is that he wants to leave the EU and that’s clear. What I don’t know is what, at the moment, he expects to see in its place.

In terms of the White Paper, the White Paper remains the joint paper between ourselves and Plaid Cymru. He asked in particular, ‘Where are the points of disagreement?’ First of all, tone. What we saw from the Prime Minister before the election was a nationalist tone. I can’t describe it in any other way. The kind of tone that we saw from people who said to us that the EU would fall at our feet in order to get a deal. That was false and we see that now. The voters rejected that tone, and now it’s time to reset. Firstly, I don’t believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that is nonsensical. No deal is the worst deal. Nor do I believe that if there is no transition that is something we should not be afraid of. I cannot understand why there’s this desperate need to fall off the edge of a cliff when there is a bridge that can be walked over and that bridge is EEA membership or EFTA membership.

I don’t agree with her idea that freedom of movement must end completely. Again, you cannot control your borders unless you shut the border with the Republic of Ireland. There’s no other way of doing it. And that is something that people have not yet understood. I do not agree then with the position that she’s taken on that. I don’t agree with her that, somehow, the UK would not be subject to any kind of court outside the UK. Of course it would. Even where the UK was in a position to sign a free trade agreement with another country or trading block, there would still be the need for a court to adjudicate disputes that arise from the free trade agreement; it’s bound to happen. And that would mean having a court, at the very least, if there were a free trade agreement at some point with the EU—a court made up possibly of ECJ judges and UK judges, which would constitute the trade court. There is no escaping that. If you want to have a free trade agreement, then you have to accept that other people will also have a view on the way that free trade agreement actually operates.

I don’t know what the UK’s position is any more, if I’m blunt. There has been no engagement with the devolved administrations. We know it can’t be the same as it was before the election. We know that the UK’s position was that it wished for the issue of the UK’s leaving the EU, and the UK’s future relationship with the EU, to be dealt with in parallel. The EU’s position was that it should be sequential. We hear now that the EU’s position has won out—that it will be a sequential negotiation. So, that ground has already been given. What was apparently going to lead to the row of the summer, to quote David Davis, that’s not going to happen.

I welcome what he said about the JMC, and the fact that it’s no longer fit for purpose. But there is another fundamental issue here that I believe the great repeal Bill will try to address, and in a way that is negative. And that is that, where powers in devolved areas return from Brussels, they never arrive in Whitehall, they come straight here. The great repeal Bill, we believe—well, certainly, before the election—was going to try to alter the devolution settlement, without reference to the people of Wales, to stop that happening. That is a fundamental constitutional principle. And we could not accept any situation that would override the clearly expressed view of the people of Wales in 2011. It would be much more sensible if we simply say, ‘Okay, those powers are going to the devolved administrations, but let’s agree to do nothing with them, until such time as we can implement a common framework.’ The alternative is to have that common framework imposed, and that’s something we could not agree to, because that would actually overturn a part of the devolution settlement that is absolutely fundamental. We wait to see what the great repeal Bill actually says, but there clearly is an issue here for Wales.

The other issue, of course, which I touched on in the statement, though it is fundamental to us, is that, if we look at trade, trade is not devolved. There’s no dispute about that. But, if, for example, the UK were to sign a free trade agreement with New Zealand, then there’s a massive Welsh interest, because of the New Zealand lamb that would arrive in far greater quantities on the UK market. Clearly, we have a strong view on that—it’s not something that we would welcome. So, there has to be a mechanism as well to make sure that the views of the devolved administrations are, at the very least, taken into account when the UK looks to negotiate free trade agreements, where such an agreement would represent a negative disbenefit to countries such as Wales. There will be other examples that affect different parts of different countries in the UK in different ways, but these are fundamental questions that need to be addressed. We have sought to do that, and I’d invite him to express a view on those issues that I’ve already outlined, in order for us to understand more fully where his thinking has gone since the result of the referendum last year.

Thank you. Steffan Lewis.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the First Minister for his statement today.

Wrth gwrs, does dim amheuaeth bod yn rhaid i drefn llywodraethu'r DU yn y dyfodol newid ar ôl inni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Byddai llawer ohonom yn dadlau bod angen iddi newid beth bynnag oedd canlyniad y refferendwm y llynedd, wrth gwrs. Mae'r ddogfen a gyhoeddwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru heddiw’n ymhelaethu ar y cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Gweinidogion i’r DU i gytuno ar y cyd ar y fframweithiau cyffredin y bydd eu hangen ar ôl inni adael yr UE, ac mae'n nodi’n gywir ystod o feysydd a swyddogaethau sydd wedi'u datganoli, ond sy’n gweithio o fewn ffiniau fframweithiau presennol yr UE.

Ar ôl gadael yr UE, mae’r materion hyn yn parhau i fod wedi'u datganoli, fel y dywedodd y Prif Weinidog, oni bai bod Llywodraeth y DU yn gweithredu’n unochrog i gymryd y materion hyn yn ôl, yn ôl i'w statws cyn 1999, ac, wrth gwrs, byddai hynny'n annerbyniol i Blaid Cymru. Ond rydym yn iawn i fod yn bryderus am hyn, oherwydd, fel y mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi’i ddweud, nid ydym wedi cael dim manylion am fecanwaith y datganoli sydd gan Lywodraeth y DU mewn golwg ar ôl Brexit, ar wahân i eiriau cynnes. Ac rwy’n tybed a all y Prif Weinidog roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf inni am unrhyw newid meddwl sydyn a gaiff Prif Weinidog y DU am fecaneg datganoli a chydweithrediad rhwng y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig yn y dyfodol ar y materion hynny lle bydd angen cydweithio a chydweithredu. Rwy'n clywed bod hi wedi bod yn astudio llywodraeth ddatganoledig yn galed ers yr etholiad cyffredinol am ryw reswm.

Er bod Plaid Cymru yn croesawu, wrth gwrs, y cynigion am Gyngor Gweinidogion y DU, fel yr amlinellwyd yn wreiddiol yn y Papur Gwyn rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru a Phlaid Cymru, mae'r papur a gyhoeddwyd ac sydd dan ystyriaeth heddiw’n cynnwys iaith na fyddai, wrth gwrs, yn cyd-fynd â phatrwm gwleidyddol Plaid Cymru o ran gwydnwch, na hyd yn oed ddymunoldeb, undeb gwleidyddol canolog y Deyrnas Unedig. Ond, rydym yn cytuno ei bod er lles pawb ac er lles pob cenedl i’r gwledydd weithio gyda'i gilydd a chydweithredu lle y gallant. A byddwn yn argymell bod y Prif Weinidog yn darllen pamffled a gyhoeddwyd gan Gwynfor Evans yn 1960, nad yw ar gael mewn unrhyw siop lyfrau dda, 'Hunanlywodraeth i Gymru a Marchnad Gyffredin ar gyfer Gwledydd Prydain'. Does dim angen gwladwriaeth or-ganolog arnom i hwyluso cysylltiadau da iawn rhwng ein gwledydd.

Mae amgylchiadau wedi newid, fel yr wyf wedi sôn amdano eisoes, ers etholiad cyffredinol y DU. Mae'r Blaid Unoliaethol Ddemocrataidd nawr yn dal cydbwysedd grym ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae hyn yn sicr yn rhoi un mantais wleidyddol i un weinyddiaeth ddatganoledig a allai ddod yn fantais economaidd sylweddol hefyd. Felly, tybed a yw'r Prif Weinidog wedi cael sgyrsiau gyda Phrif Weinidog y DU am sut na allwn ni gael Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU ar ôl Brexit, ond yn wir Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU brys cyn Brexit, nawr bod trafodaethau ar y gweill ac nawr bod un blaid, sy’n arwain gweinyddiaeth ddatganoledig, yn dal cydbwysedd grym ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Beth yw asesiad y Prif Weinidog o'r tebygolrwydd y gwnaiff gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eraill nawr gytuno â Chyngor Gweinidogion ffurfiol i’r DU, ac ystyried y cyd-destun gwleidyddol newydd hwnnw oherwydd, yn wrthnysig, nawr byddai er budd i un blaid, o leiaf, pe na bai Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU, ond yn hytrach, berthynas ddwyochrog rhwng y Blaid Unoliaethol Ddemocrataidd a'r Blaid Geidwadol ac Unoliaethol?

Hefyd, a soniodd y Prif Weinidog am hyn yn ei ymateb i arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, o ystyried y ffaith bod y cwestiwn am ffin Iwerddon, mater yr ardal deithio gyffredin a'r fframweithiau sy'n gorgyffwrdd sydd eisoes yn bodoli rhwng Gogledd Iwerddon a Gweriniaeth Iwerddon yn uchel iawn ar yr agenda yn y trafodaethau rhwng yr UE a’r DU—yn wir, fe'u trafodwyd ddoe ar ddiwrnod cyntaf un y trafodaethau dwyochrog hynny—onid oes lle yn awr i fynd y tu hwnt i'r ddogfen a gyhoeddwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru a chyflwyno cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig newydd tebyg i’r Cyngor Nordig? Wrth gwrs, yn ardal y Cyngor Nordig mae gweinyddiaethau datganoledig, gwladwriaethau annibynnol—rhai y tu mewn i'r UE, rhai y tu allan i'r UE—a chwestiynau am ffiniau tir. Onid oes angen inni yn awr fod yn edrych y tu hwnt i gyfyngiadau'r Deyrnas Unedig yn unig a sicrhau y cawn Gyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig gweithredol gyda chyfranogiad llawn gan y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig? Oherwydd, wrth gwrs, bydd y penderfyniadau a wneir ym Mrwsel rhwng y DU a'r UE am y cwestiynau sy’n ymwneud yn benodol ag Iwerddon yn arwain at ganlyniadau enfawr ar gyfer meysydd datganoledig, o amaethyddiaeth i faterion gwledig ac i weinyddu’r porthladdoedd, yn enwedig yng Nghaergybi. Felly, byddai gennyf ddiddordeb mawr mewn clywed a yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn bwriadu cyhoeddi dogfen debyg ar gyfer cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig newydd a fyddai'n cynnwys holl genhedloedd yr ynysoedd hyn, nid dim ond y rhai ohonom sy’n aelodau o’r Deyrnas Unedig ar hyn o bryd.

Yn olaf, pleidleisiodd y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn, yn gymharol ddiweddar, o blaid cyflwyno Bil parhad er mwyn gwarchod cyfansoddiad Cymru ac ymgorffori’r amddiffyniadau a’r hawliau yr ydym yn eu mwynhau heddiw yng nghyfraith Cymru. Byddwn yn ddiolchgar pe gallai'r Prif Weinidog roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i'r Cynulliad am y cynnydd o ran cyflwyno Bil o'r fath.

Can I thank the Member for his comments? I think it’s fair to say that before the general election the idea of there being an equal partnership of four Governments was not in the vocabulary of the UK Government. They saw themselves as being superior to the three devolved administrations, even in areas that were devolved. The language has changed. I’m not sure that the desire, in terms of what to do during the Brexit negotiations, has necessarily changed. There are three things that need to be in place before the UK leaves the EU. The first is that the Council of Ministers must already be up and running because the structure to decide what happens with devolved powers when they return must be in place when those powers actually do return. It wouldn’t be good enough just for us to see Brexit and then set up a Council of Ministers. Secondly, there needs to be established a set of rules that would govern the internal single market of the UK. Sensibly, it’s probably best to keep the EU state aid rules as they are until such time as a set of rules can be developed. Thirdly, and most importantly, there needs to be, as Members will have heard me say before, an independent court that polices the rules of the market. At the moment, there is a dispute resolution process that exists, but the disputes are resolved, ultimately, by the UK Treasury. So, if we are in dispute with the UK Treasury, it’s the UK Treasury that resolves the dispute, and that can’t be realistic or proper—well, it’s not proper now, but it certainly can’t be proper in the future. For any single market to succeed, if there are rules in that single market then all those involved in that market must have faith that the rules are being interpreted impartially, probably by a trade court. It could be easily done by simply saying, ‘Let the Supreme Court do it’.

With regard to Scotland, it’s not clear what Scotland’s strategy will be in the future. I think it’s fair to say that, in the past, Scotland’s view has tended to be, ‘Well, we agree with what you’re saying but our direction of travel is different.’ I’m not sure that is as clear following the general election.

With regard to Ireland, we have bilateral links with Ireland but Ireland are in a difficult position with regard to the British-Irish Council, in the sense that at the British-Irish Council the Republic of Ireland is part of the other negotiating party—it’s part of the EU, so it’s hugely awkward for the Republic of Ireland to offer a view in the BIC because it’s part of the collective view of the EU. The Ireland administrations find the BIC very useful because it’s their chance to meet with bigger jurisdictions, and they have a particular grievance in the sense that, if the UK leaves the customs union, so will they, without being asked. So, from their perspective, they find themselves in an invidious position. I think, in time, once Brexit is resolved and the Republic feels that it has perhaps a little bit perhaps more freedom than it does at the moment in terms of negotiation, then the BIC might start to grow. It has to be said that, historically, the BIC has not been the place where decisions are taken, and has tended to be a place where there’s been general discussion, some bilaterals, but it’s not been a particularly forceful body. In the more than seven years now that I’ve been First Minister, not once has the UK Prime Minister attended the BIC, which shows you, really, how much precedence the UK gives to the BIC, even though the Irish Taoiseach has always been there.

In terms of some of the issues that he raised, the issue of Ireland, again, he mentioned it in the context of the BIC. It does have, as I’ve said before, a resonance for us in Wales. If the maritime border between Wales and Ireland is seen as more difficult than the border between the north and south in Ireland, there are trade implications for us. Seventy per cent of the trade between Great Britain and the island of Ireland goes through the Welsh ports. Anything that interferes with that clearly is bad for Wales, and bad for jobs.

Finally, he asked about the continuity Bill. It is something that we are still considering. He has made the case for it—I’ve listened carefully to it and he makes a strong case for it. Whether the situation has changed since the election, we don’t know, but I don’t think we can take anything for granted. So, I can assure him that the continuity Bill is now being considered by lawyers.

Thank you very much. David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon and the paper he produced and published last Thursday? I think, as the committee has taken evidence over the last 12 months, we’ve identified many issues. And you talked about the JMC—I think, from our first report onwards, the JMC has been seen as more of a pantomime than actually as a functioning body that will make decisions, and I’m very glad of your highlighting the issue to address that. Can I ask a couple of points? You highlighted state aid as one example, and I agree with you that consistency across the UK is needed for that internal market, but have you had discussions with the other devolved nations as to how that may proceed not just by the Council of Ministers but perhaps other mechanisms to allow those discussions to take place to ensure that we have a consistent approach by our devolved nations? I do appreciate that the Northern Ireland Executive isn’t sitting at this point in time, but they are as important as elsewhere.

In your paper, you actually highlighted—and in your statement—that you’re preparing to protect Wales from being trampled over by Westminster Tories, and I hope that the eight surviving Welsh Tory MPs will join you and support you in that. But can you provide any more details? Because, in your answer to Steffan Lewis, you didn’t actually indicate what trigger point would be the case, introduced under continuity Bill, if you needed to do so, because the timescales that we would have are important in that aspect, and it is important to understand what trigger point you would want to push that button, effectively.

Can you also answer the question as to the capacity in the Welsh Government? We’ve had this question many times as to do you have capacity to actually work with devolved nations and Whitehall to ensure that this delivers. Now, this Council of Ministers indicates that there will be a separate administrative body with seconded members onto it from different devolved nations. Do we have the capacity to do that to ensure that it can actually work?

The day after you published your report, the committee published its report on the initial considerations of the great repeal Bill, and I think you will find we have deep concerns over the ability of the UK Government to actually talk to devolved nations. From what evidence we’ve received, they don’t, to be honest. On the repeal Bill, they didn’t consult with the Welsh Government. These are legislative, important considerations, which they need to consider with you and this Assembly as a whole. I would hope that you will be pushing the UK Government—not just the Council of Ministers—for better interaction with the parliamentary bodies as well to ensure that the legislation that will come through as a consequence of the great repeal Bill can be considered and ensured it delivers for both the UK and the devolved nations independently.

And, finally, we actually met with Irish officials and Ministers yesterday on our visit to Ireland to discuss Welsh ports. There are clearly problems they face greatly as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU by the UK people. We talked about Welsh ports and links east-west, effectively. I know the focus has been on the links north-south, in the island of Ireland itself, but it’s important we reflect that in the UK, because the TEN-T considerations for the routes across the UK—the language that’s been used—are important. Discussions need to be had there with the UK Government. I’m also concerned that the UK Government may focus clearly on the English ports, with the continent of Europe, more than us. It was reported yesterday, to us, that discussions with Philip Hammond had indicated that they would take four years to put into place mechanisms in Dover to actually handle anything that is not part of the customs union. What’s going to happen to the Welsh ports in that sense, and how will we ensure that we get our fair share of treatment and it’s not just left to the English ports and we are left in the cold once again?

Can I thank the Member for his comments? First of all, the approach has not been consistent, shall we say, with regard to the devolved nations. Some departments are better than others, at official level, in engaging. The very first act that Michael Gove—one of the very first acts that Michael Gove—took forward when he became the DEFRA secretary was to cancel meetings with the devolved Ministers, which was not perhaps the most positive step that he could have taken. I have, as the Member will know, written to the Prime Minister. In that, I’ve suggested an immediate JMC. I’ve suggested we should invite the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein, even though they’re not First and Deputy First Minister yet, but I think it’s important they are part of those discussions.

The Welsh Conservative MPs have been completely silent, as far as I can tell, so far. It’s in marked contrast to the view taken by the Scottish Conservatives, who’ve been very vocal and had a good election result in Scotland. Ruth Davidson and her team have been very vocal in outlining what they think the UK should do. I’ve not heard anything at all from Welsh Conservative MPs, and I regret that because they have an important voice as part of the debate, but nothing heard from them yet.

With regard to the continuity Bill, the one thing we do know is that the continuity Bill would need to become an Act before the great repeal Bill became an Act, because we would need to preserve our position before the great repeal Bill was able to interfere with it. So, the work is already ongoing, but we know that that’s the timescale we are working to. The great repeal Bill is going to take—I mean, there are some voices in Westminster who think this can be done by Christmas. Bluntly, the fact there’s no Queen’s Speech next year is an indication of how long it’s actually going to take. So, we’ll keep an eye on the timescale there.

The question about the capacity of Welsh Government is a fair one. It is something that I’ve been exploring for some time with the Permanent Secretary. I’m confident that we have the right people in place. We will never have depth in the way that the UK Government does, because of numbers, but we have ability and expertise and I’m confident that we can meet the challenge that is ahead of us. There will be, inevitably, consequences for this Assembly. There may be major legislative burdens that the Assembly will face over the next few years. We won’t know until we see the text of the great repeal Bill itself.

And, finally, on the ports—. Well, of course, the view of the UK Government will be, ‘Well, Ireland will be fine because there’s always been a common travel area’. Well, that’s not the case anymore. For the first time, there will be potentially border controls in place. Nobody wants to see that. Perhaps more realistically, there will be customs checks again. Now, you can’t have a seamless border and customs checks. If Ireland is within the customs union and the UK isn’t then you will have customs checks that are rigorous, and with that you run the risk of igniting conflict in Northern Ireland again, or you create a paradise for smugglers, quite frankly. That border was known for years as a place where a great deal of smuggling went on. This would make it even worse. That is something that would not be in the interest either of us or indeed of the island of Ireland. When I’ve raised this issue, the answer I’ve always had back is, ‘Oh, it’ll be resolved’. Well, there’s no sign of it being resolved yet, and that, potentially, is the most difficult part of the negotiations. What do you do—? Because most people who live on this island think that the UK is an island and haven’t given thought to the fact that there is a land border—actually, that’s one of the most difficult issues that’ll need to be resolved.

I welcome the statement today. In particular, I welcome the tone that the First Minister has adopted, which I think is both realistic and reasonable and all the more persuasive for that. I’m glad that he’s moved on from the referendum in the last 12 months, in marked contradistinction to the tone that we heard from the leader of Plaid Cymru earlier on today. That’s the way, I think, to advance Wales’s interests with the Government of the United Kingdom and, indeed, more widely as well.

Although I do endorse what the leader of the Welsh Conservatives said, that we need to establish as wide a consensus as possible in support of the Welsh Government’s position vis-à-vis the United Kingdom Government, and, in UKIP, the First Minister will find that perhaps we are nearer to his position than the Welsh Conservatives are. In particular, as I’ve said all along, we should get every penny that Brussels currently spends of British taxpayers’ money in Wales back here in Cardiff, and also we are against any land grab of any kind of the powers that have been devolved. And I fully support the statements that the First Minister has said today in relation to all of that.

I also support his view that the UK Government needs to treat us with respect and the union will survive and prosper only if each participant in it exhibits those characteristics. It is a shame, I think, that the UK Government has not been more inclusive and sought to move forward with the Welsh Government in this respect. I certainly deprecate Michael Gove’s cancelling of his meeting that was planned with devolved Ministers.

The First Minister asked the leader of the Welsh Conservatives what his policy is on a range of issues, and, of course, we want free access, as far as possible, to European markets, and we’re against non-tariff barriers. The problem with the single market as it developed was not the conception that the Government had when I was a member of it, which was based upon the European Court of Justice case of Cassis de Dijon, which didn’t require minute regulation of every product that was produced in the European Communities, as they then were, so that everybody was put within a single straitjacket of regulation, but that you could sell any product that was legal in one country in any other country, and that would’ve been, I think, a much better way for the European Union to proceed. But they took the opposite direction and the result has been the vote, I think, on 23 June last year.

But we have to accept that free movement is a non-negotiable item for the British Government, because that was one of the principal ingredients behind the decision of the British people last June. There are problems with the borders of Northern Ireland—I fully accept that and those are practical problems that need to be resolved. As regards the customs union, I can’t see how we could conceivably remain inside the customs union, because that would mean one of the principal benefits of Brexit would be denied to us, which is the ability to enter into free trade agreements with the 85 per cent of the global economy that is not part of the EU.

Whilst I fully accept what the First Minister says, that there are bound to be winners and losers in any free trade agreement, and the losers have to be protected as far as we possibly can, the British Government should, therefore, enter into meaningful discussions with the devolved administrations to try to come up with a composite proposal that means that any particular grouping—let’s take sheep farmers, for example, as one of the best examples of this—that could be disadvantaged by a free trade agreement, as the First Minister said, with New Zealand, that we have some means of protecting their interests. I, unfortunately, don’t see any mechanism at the moment that has been set up by the UK Government to address that constitutional difficulty.

So, I welcome the proposals that the First Minister has put forward in relation to the creation of a kind of council of Ministers for the UK, although those of us who’ve been members of the Council of Ministers in the EU have, no doubt, many criticisms of the way that secretive organisation works. It’s certainly an interesting idea that a kind of qualified majority vote system should be introduced in the UK—of the UK Government plus one devolved administration—although that I wouldn’t want to endorse without further thought.

I don’t agree with the First Minister where he said that the country is deeply divided. The divisions that exist are deep, but the overwhelming majority of people in this country have either welcomed enthusiastically the decision of the referendum last June, or have adjusted to it. It’s only perhaps 20 per cent of the population who take a different view, and 83 per cent of the people who voted in the general election just a few days ago voted for parties that are committed formally to leaving the European Union. I’m not sure that a convention on the future of the UK is useful at the moment. In fact, the general election result, as the First Minister referred to, in Scotland shows that maybe the direction of travel north of the border there is rather different from what we thought it to be just a few weeks ago, and perhaps it would be better to see how things go for a little while yet before we try to come up with formalised institutions that are designed to be permanent.

There’s only one other point that I wish to make, in view of the time, that has not been referred to hitherto, and that’s the statement on page 12 of this document, which refers to the corpus of regulation that we will inherit from the EU when we leave. I don’t think it is right just to make a blanket statement that we should preserve for the long term the social and environmental protections that we’ve accrued through the EU. I think we should look at everything that is currently on the legislative statute book and consider it afresh as to whether it’s fully proportionate, whether many of these regulations could be dispensed with altogether or mended in some form to reduce the cost to the public without endangering any of the public benefits that they’re designed to protect. Over 45 years, a mass of legislation has been generated in the most minute detail, very often with very little parliamentary oversight at all. Regulations that are directly applicable, for example, have never been in any way voted on in the House of Commons. With many of the directives—having sat on committees considering them but not having the power to make any amendments many times in the past decades—I’ve come to be fully aware of the democratic deficit, so we should address that. It will take a very, very long time indeed, but nevertheless I think we should take a flexible view of this. And in the interests of Wales, given that we are the poorest part of the United Kingdom, we should want to make ourselves as competitive as possible to raise the level of income of our people. So, I give the First Minister broad support for the approach that he has taken today, and I think this is a much better document than the joint document that was produced with Plaid Cymru. I think he’s much better when he is ploughing his own furrow, rather than having somebody slowing down the speed of the plough behind him.

Well, I suspect if he was there, then the plough wouldn’t move at all if I was trying to push it. I’ll try and be generous in terms of what he said. We’re in very different positions. There’s one thing that I agree with him about, and that is that it’s hugely important that the UK adjusts to the new reality. He and I are never going to agree on the customs union; I think we should be within the customs union. I can’t see there’s any other option. Ireland’s already been mentioned in terms of ensuring that, for example, we have fair play for our automotive manufacturers, for companies like Airbus, for our steel industry—that is the bare minimum that is required.

He is right to say that most people either voted for Brexit or have become reconciled to it; I think that’s fairly true. The problem is that people can’t agree on what sort of Brexit they want. We know people don’t want a hard Brexit; they rejected that in the general election. People will have very different views on what Brexit means for them. I’ve had people say to me, ‘I voted for Brexit because I wanted to get out of the European convention on human rights’ and I’ve had to say to people, ‘That’s nothing to do with the EU’. And yet some people have said to me that’s the way that they voted. Most people want to see Brexit happen—they take the view that the vote is the vote and that’s it—but it’s quite clear from the election that people don’t want to see it happen in the hardest way possible. They don’t want to see a situation where there is no deal; they don’t want to see a situation where there’s a cliff edge after March 2019; and they want the British Government to be reasonable in negotiation, conducting it from a pragmatic viewpoint, not a nationalist viewpoint, which they’ve been doing up until now.

I can’t agree with him on the issue of the convention. Now, more than ever, we need a convention. He is right to say that the journey towards independence in Scotland has gone in a different direction after the general election, but that’s not to say that, somehow, there is a lack of appetite for devolution either in Scotland or in Wales. That’s why it’s so important that, as we face the future, as we see the UK—which is now going to be like a miniature EU, rather than a country that looks like France or Germany in the future—that we get the structure right in order that the UK can maintain the flexibility that it’s been able to show in the past to enable the identities and viewpoints of the smaller nations to be heard while, at the same time, preserving the union. The union’s had to change. The union will have to change in the future. It’s in that flexibility that there should be strength.

His view is that we should become a low-tax haven. He’s said that several times. I cannot agree with him on that. I’m not prepared to dilute environmental regulations. Let’s not forget that the UK, at one time, had appalling environmental legislation. Our rivers were highly polluted, the air was polluted and we were responsible, in large part, for acid rain. It was the European Union that forced us to clean up our act, and the last thing we want to do is to go back to those days. That’s why, to me, it does make sense to keep the current corpus of EU legislation and, in time, examine what regulations are appropriate to Wales.

Can I welcome the First Minister’s statement and the ‘Brexit and Devolution’ statement, which is a substantive and reasoned case, and advocates a new reality? It also, critically, has a tone of partnership in recognising that all parts of the UK want to make these new arrangements work after we leave the European Union.

Could I ask the First Minister—? In his statement and in the ‘Brexit and Devolution’ paper, there are references to ‘binding UK frameworks’ being ‘drawn up and agreed’. Can he clarify whether he envisages that, in addition to individual decisions within the council of Ministers, the basic frameworks could also be agreed on that basis of a UK plus 1 formula that the statement also sets out? Also, can he confirm the sense in which those frameworks would be binding? Is the statement, in effect, saying they would be binding in statute in some way?

There are also references, which he echoed in his statement, to ‘independently managed arbitration’. Again, is that process going to be one that is a statutory process that has teeth, or, if not, can he elaborate on that proposal?

There are references in the paper to a statutory underpinning for the council of Ministers, and I’m encouraged that, perhaps, we share the view that—notwithstanding the UK Government’s historic reluctance to deal with matters generally in this area with a view that is based on coherence and reason—we could move beyond a sort of handshake approach to one that enshrines, in statute, these new intergovernmental relations, just as the devolution powers are enshrined in statute and, dare I say it, perhaps, at some point, we might have a fair funding formula based in statute as well.

First of all, yes, in terms of the UK frameworks, UK plus 1, we believe, is a reasonable way of resolving disputes. We’d hope, of course, that there would be unanimity, but in the absence of unanimity, there has to be a process in place that deals with how to get decisions done.

In terms of binding frameworks, those frameworks wouldn’t be binding by statute, but they would be binding by agreement. Now, that would mean, for example, that if a business felt that state aid rules were being breached by one Government, it would have the confidence to go to the adjudication body in order for their complaint to be dealt with. So, it’s not so much a question of one Government complaining about another; it’s more to do with businesses taking issues to court that they feel breach state aid rules, much as is the case now.

In terms of what the court itself would do, it would be an adjudicator, rather than an arbitrator. It has to be a decision maker in that regard. It would simply be the case that the parties agree that that court should be the independent court that binds them. It’s common in internal single markets. The US Supreme Court acts as the regulator for interstate commerce within the US, so preserving the United States’ single market in terms of goods and services. As far as the EFTA Court is concerned, it does the same for EFTA; the ECJ does the same for the European single market. There has to be, in any single market, if there are going to be rules, an independent adjudicator that polices those rules, as I’ve said before.

In terms of the council of Ministers, he raises an intriguing point: should it have statutory underpinning? I suppose that statutory underpinning would be via joint legislation that would have to be taken through all four parliaments at the same time in order for it to have the kind of statutory underpinning that would be required. That’s an interesting idea. The co-ordination of it would present a challenge, but nevertheless it’s one that certainly is worthy of examination. But ultimately, an internal single market can only work if there is agreement between the parties that exist within that market and if there is a body to police those rules. Otherwise it ceases to be an internal single market, and it then becomes a market where it’s possible, effectively, to have trade wars within that market, and that’s not something, surely, that we would welcome, particularly given our size and the chaos it would cause within that market.

I, like others, welcome the statement today, but also the document, ‘Brexit and Devolution’, as well. I would say, as well, that we commend once again the fact that here within the Welsh Assembly—within the Welsh Government—there is a willingness to step up and show leadership on things that, to many people, they’d say ‘Why is this important?’ And yet if you read the document that underpins this statement, you can see there is an element here of futureproofing, as well, the UK constitution. It’s not simply a response to what’s currently going on within Brexit and European negotiations; it’s looking ahead a little bit as well. But I want to just test the First Minister a little bit on whether this is throwing a massive boulder in the pool to see what will come out from the ripples that flow from it, or whether some of this is actually achievable imminently as well. We notice that, in the concluding remarks in the report that underpins this, the Welsh Government says:

‘The Welsh Government appreciates that, for many in the UK, some of the ideas set out in this document may appear challenging. Adopting them would amount to a major constitutional reconstruction of the UK, and we do not under-estimate this.’

But it does, both within the statement and within the document, split up those that are wider issues, and longer issues, perhaps, such as the constitutional convention and that wider debate, from the immediate issues that we are currently faced with, such as, as many others have remarked about, the possibility of moving to a council of Ministers—not a JMC; not a strengthened JMC but a council of Ministers and all the mechanisms that would entail.

So, the first question to the First Minister is: how realistic does he think are the prospects of the UK Government adopting the proposals in here for a council of Ministers? Or does he think that there is some measure that is on the way to that, such as a strengthened JMC that would have some of the same characteristics of a council of Ministers? More parity; more esteem between the partners within it; an agreed meaningful agenda that is set by those who participate within the JMC, where decisions are made—in all but, in effect, a council of Ministers as he’s saying. Is this something that he would hope, even short of this, that the UK Government, and the other partners around the UK, would actually accept?

Secondly, can I ask him: in the current political context we have on this side of the general election that we’ve just had, does he think this makes his ambitions within here more or less realisable? Neil has already mentioned that he thinks some of the larger issues such as the constitutional convention may still be ones that are longer-term aspirations. I don’t know, but I’d be interested in the First Minister’s response to that because, again, it seems within here that there are some parts, like the council of Ministers, that are an imperative—an urgent imperative. Others might be longer-term ambitions. But has the current political context changed the possibility of this being made reality?

Thirdly, this—

You are the third speaker, and therefore it should be a statement and one question, and I think I’ve been lenient.

My apologies.

As you are Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I will allow you that third point, very briefly.

Thank you very much. In which case, my third of the many I have in front of me will be this one: the First Minister has actually pointed out in here not only a positive, collaborative, collective way forward—and it comes across very clearly—but he’s also carrying a very big stick as well. He has said within his statement today that if this collective, collaborative, positive way forward is not seen, then the Welsh Government is ready to respond, in his quotes, ‘forcefully and negatively’. Mention has been made already of the continuity Bill—is that what is in the consideration, or are there other mechanisms as well in which the Welsh Government would respond forcefully and negatively if there was not a will to make this happen?

First of all, in response to my friend the Member for Ogmore: not just do I believe that what is in this paper is achievable, but it’s necessary if the UK is going to show its flexibility in order for it to prosper in the future. Does it mean, for example, we re-examine, in time, concepts such as parliamentary sovereignty? Yes, it does. We know that there are other countries, like Canada, where shared sovereignty is the rule. Is that so radical that it destabilises a country? Clearly not, because we know that hasn’t happened in Canada.

In terms of the alternative, the UK Government hasn’t offered an alternative as yet. For me, the council of Ministers would be a natural evolution from the JMC. The JMC doesn’t take any decisions. It has no mechanisms to take decisions. As we leave the EU, there has to be a decision-taking body in place that is representative of all four Governments. So, the JMC would evolve into a council of Ministers in any event. So, the structure’s already there. It’s simply a question of ensuring that the body has more teeth. At the moment, bluntly, often it is a place of full and frank discussions, shall I say, but it doesn’t actually lead to anything. It’s a great shame because I think it has potential as a council of Ministers.

Are these goals realisable? I think if the result had been different and there had been a majority for the current UK Government, the answer would have been ‘probably not’, but times have changed, as you know, and it means that it’s hugely important now that other voices beyond those who advocate the kind of Brexit, or the kind of constitutional settlement, that the Prime Minister was advocating are listened to. I won’t kid myself that there are not those in the UK Government, and in the governing party, who think devolution is a mistake and who would willingly take the opportunity to roll back devolution as it is, regardless of the democratic mandate that underpins it. So, sometimes, the stick has to be displayed, if I can put it that way, because the only alternative is to modify the devolved competencies not just of ourselves, but of the Scots and Northern Ireland as well, without the consent either of this institution or the people of Wales. This is a hugely serious matter, and it’s right that we should put down on record what our position would be if such a retrograde and radical step was taken. Of course, we will resist it in any way that we can. Of course, if there’s an imposition of state aid rules by the UK Government, we’ll resist that as well. Why would we feel that we had ownership of it if it was an imposition? Far more grown-up—bluntly—and far more sensible would be the establishment of the mechanism that I’ve referred to, where we can sit down and agree a common approach where everyone has a sense of ownership. That is far more likely to work than imposing systems or frameworks on devolved governments in devolved areas without their consent.

And finally and briefly, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Given your references to Ireland, particularly, and David Rees’s reference, as Chair of the external affairs committee, to our visit yesterday—he referred to Irish Government officials and Ministers who are obviously speaking to their counterparts in the other 26 EU member states regarding the negotiating position of the Commission—how do you respond, given your statements and concerns, to the statement made by a Minister that the common travel area issues should be resolved without any real problem, and from, finally, the Irish Marine Development Office, which acts on the aegis of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, that Brexit won’t close the 18-hour advantage of the land bridge to the continental markets through Welsh ports after the detailed modelling they’ve done based on the likely customs check and customer arrangements that will exist, as they hypothesise, after exit, if there’s a soft border between the north and south of Ireland but a Brexit border on the Welsh coast?

These things have to be resolved based on parity. I don’t think it is right that there should be a difference in the nature of the border regardless of where that border actually is. The common travel area issue cannot be resolved unless you have border controls on the border because otherwise it’s perfectly possible for people, once they arrive in Ireland from wherever they are in the world, simply to cross into the UK. There are issues there, potentially, involving people trafficking if we’re not careful, because that border—if you have an EU passport, you can get into Ireland and get into the UK without any checks at all. If you get into Ireland, then effectively you’re into the UK. These are issues that weren’t properly considered at the time of the Brexit referendum. They haven’t been properly considered now. No-one wants to see a hard border. I don’t think anyone’s advocating that, but no-one has yet come up with any idea of how that hard border can be avoided. A hard border there carries consequences that are considerable and which no-one would want to see.

I don’t believe that we can be optimistic about the land bridge if there are two sets of customs checks in place. If you are an Irish freight operator and you’re offered the choice between going into Holyhead with customs checks, and going to Dover and queuing, with the border agency plus customs checks, then that becomes unattractive compared to the ferry journey, for example, between Rosslare and Cherbourg. Now, these things have to be looked at carefully in terms of the economics, but in terms of the potential delay that would be in place, well, what would your choice be? To be able to move seamlessly from Ireland to France, or to move via two sets of customs controls to France via the UK? These are issues that have not yet been resolved. To my mind, there is a great deal of misplaced optimism about what happens in Ireland. Because everybody agrees that something should happen, that doesn’t mean that it will happen. We have to make sure that people understand that there will be no control over the UK border. It’s just not going to happen. It is cloud-cuckoo-land, because control of the border implies border controls at the border. That’s not going to happen. If people are willing to accept that, the UK has to accept that it will have an open border with the EU in Ireland, then there are more possibilities in terms of what might be possible in terms of trade. But what is absolutely clear is you cannot keep on using the line, ‘We will control our borders’ when you know that isn’t true. I don’t mean the Member particularly, and I’ll make it clearer: nobody can say that we can control our borders if the border’s going to be open. It’s just not possible to do it, and the sooner we move away from that pretence, the better it will be for the negotiations.

Thank you very much. Thank you, First Minister.