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.