Notwithstanding the fact that the First Minister has the last word and has a habit of using it, I can’t resist using the statement by Churchill about Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain—that he, I quote:

‘looked at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe’.

I can’t also avoid the Churchillian edicts, which went along the lines of,

‘Don’t argue about difficulties. The difficulties will argue for themselves’.

You referred to the Joint Ministerial Committee (European negotiations) on 16 October, attended by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. The joint communiqué issued following that meeting concluded that,

‘Ministers noted the positive progress being made on consideration of common frameworks’.

Should we therefore not be celebrating the fact that, as this said, agreement has been reached between the UK Government and devolved administrations on the principles that will underpin the process of bringing back powers from the EU to the UK, and underpin the development of common UK frameworks jointly between the four UK administrations, where co-operation and common standards—your words—are needed when EU frameworks cease to apply in the UK? In that context, also, could you tell us whether there’s been any discussion yet, or whether you’re aware of any discussion yet, regarding proposals for adjudication applying to those agreed common frameworks?

You referred to the European Council meeting last week. Why will you not acknowledge that the two sides—I don’t like using ‘sides’, because, of course, we’re all friends and neighbours—are now within touching distance of a deal on citizens’ rights, that they agree there must be no physical infrastructure on the Irish border and that the common travel area must continue, and that the Prime Minister’s Florence speech has given further impetus to discussions over the financial settlement and implementation period? I will resist asking what policies, apparently somewhat confused, your colleagues in the UK Parliament have on this in terms of the customs union, single market, free movement and second referendum, because I’m as confused as everybody else about that.

Is it not the case that, following last week’s European Council meeting, the European Council President, Donald Tusk, said, quote,

‘Reports that Brexit talks between Britain and the EU are deadlocked have been "exaggerated" ’.

Is it not the case that leaders of the remaining 27 EU member states told the UK there had been progress in the talks, and that they have given the green light for preparations to begin the second phase of Brexit talks, beginning with trade, paving the way for the possible start of formal talks on the future EU-UK trade relationship in December? Is it not a fact that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, following those talks, said there are hopeful signs that they will plan for a December start to trade discussions with Britain, and she said we’re going to achieve ‘a good result’, there will be a good outcome? Why can’t you join that positive approach if you want a good outcome? Because your repeated diatribes on this issue keep fighting the messages of the referendum, despite your claim to accept them rather than allying yourself with the rabble opposite in opposing everything to do with this.

You referred to the EU withdrawal Bill. Whilst we share with you concern regarding restrictions on the legislative competence of this Assembly and accept the logic of UK Ministers consulting with us before making any changes to legislation with devolved competence, do you recognise that the UK Government approach taken was based on feedback they’d received from UK and Welsh industry and this was designed to be on the side of a strong economy? Perhaps you can tell us what Ford in Bridgend say about this, because I know what they’ve told the UK Government. The European withdrawal Bill is designed to provide the maximum possible certainty and continuity to businesses, employees and consumers across the whole UK that they will not be subject to unexpected changes and ensure the statute book is able to function on the day after we leave the EU. Will you confirm that you share that goal, albeit you have certain conditions that you still wish to be met?

You referred to ‘no deal’ not being an option, but will you recognise that, although some people may hold to that goal of a ‘no deal’, for most people this was a negotiating strategy and the fact—[Interruption.]—the fact that the popularity of the ‘no deal’ option amongst the UK population has driven a change in emphasis from many leading voices in the EU might have actually proved that the strategy worked? Where it is in everyone’s interests to secure a good deal, for both the UK and our friends and neighbours in the EU, while planning for all outcomes is the responsible approach, the UK Government believes that getting a good outcome, one that works for the peoples and businesses of the UK and for those in the EU is by far the most likely outcome. Need we ask why you, therefore, failed to acknowledge in your statement that both the Prime Minister and David Davis have consistently said that we want to see a full and comprehensive agreement with the EU retaining an open and free trading area across the European continent? [Interruption.] For them, it’s not even glass half full or half empty, it’s glass completely empty on a permanent, it seems, basis. You state that a soft Ireland-Northern Ireland border can only be maintained if we continue to work within a customs union within the EU.