Well, I cannot surely be blamed for the UK joining the European Community in 1972, given that I was five years old, in the same way as I was asked which way I’d voted in the 1979 referendum. Clearly, I need to look a little younger, because I was only 12. Nevertheless, we have to remember that the UK joined the EEC because it was desperate to do so. But that is perhaps for another day.

This is not about reversing Brexit. I’ve said that many, many times. Surely, it is not a case of ‘Brexit has to occur only on the terms put forward by the UK Government’. Because that is what they are saying: ‘Our Brexit or tough luck’. Now, that is not a sensible way of dealing with issues when it comes to devolution. The UK is not what it was in 1972. It’s not a unitary state with one Government. It is a partnership of four nations where there are different responsibilities allocated to different Governments according to whether they’re devolved or non-devolved.

I come back to the point I made earlier on, just to remind the leader of UKIP. What I am being asked to do here as First Minister, if the UK Government has its way, is to stand up before the Assembly and say to the Assembly that powers that would automatically come to the Assembly should instead go to London for an unlimited period of time and that we as an Assembly should support it. I mean, surely, nobody would want to support a scenario—well, some might, but nobody here would want to support a scenario like that, where powers that would come to us are intercepted. Yes, they’re not powers we exercise at the moment, but they will be if they come naturally to rest here. What difference does it make—he complains about Brussels—if they then go and disappear into the Whitehall machinery, and then we find ourselves in a situation where we find it difficult to shape agriculture, to shape economic development, to shape our fisheries policy in a way that we would want? Of course it can’t be a free for all. I understand that. We’ve got to make sure that there’s a single market within the UK, and that we don’t not have any control at all over how subsidies are paid. We can’t win that battle. England is very big. We can’t win that battle. So, there have to be rules. We understand that. But this should be done by consent and not by imposition. That’s the key.

This Bill—the offending clauses of this Bill that deal with devolution can be removed. That removes an obstacle, as far as devolution is concerned, in terms of this Bill moving forward. There are other issues that will be debated in Parliament, I’m sure, and within this Chamber. There is no penalty to the UK Government for this. It doesn’t cost them anything. There’s no downside to it at all. All they have to do is to work with us to come to an acceptable agreement, and it removes a problem for them. I just cannot understand the strategic sense in saying, ‘Let’s fight a battle with everybody we can’, rather than saying, ‘Let’s focus on the issues. This is a problem for Wales and Scotland. It’s not really a problem for us. Let’s come to an agreement on it and that matter is dealt with’. So far there’s been no suggestion that they’ve been able to do that, but it is something that we want to see in the future, and that’s the fundamental issue here. In some ways it’s not about Brexit. It’s actually about powers resting where they’re meant to rest, and the principle of consent when it comes to creating common frameworks in devolved areas rather than the imposition that this Bill, on the face of it—. I hear what’s said by UK Ministers, but what’s on the face of the Bill is quite different. What the Bill would do would be to deprive the people of Wales of powers that they are entitled to for an indefinite period of time, and in no way could I suggest to the Assembly that the Assembly should vote in favour of that.