Diolch, Llywydd. I’ll try and be as short as I can. First Minister, I rise to speak following the leader of UKIP in the Assembly who, once again, seems to prefer his opinion to fact in this matter, and I will try and stick to the facts.

The issues in your statement highlight two areas, which are about the processes and the progress of those processes, both in Westminster and in Brussels. In relation to Westminster, the committee I chair, the external affairs committee, has actually looked very carefully at the EU withdrawal Bill and suggested its own six areas where we believe the Bill needs to be modified, which not only reflects what the Welsh Government has asked for, but actually goes beyond that and looks at the role of the Assembly and its ability to scrutinise Ministers within our Government to ensure that we can maintain that, and it is proper for our democracy that we are able to do so. So, can I ask a question on what are your red lines as a Government on that withdrawal Bill? You’ve highlighted where you’ve worked with the Scottish Government. Well, we’ve gone beyond that. What are your red lines before you can decide whether that Bill has now been amended sufficiently for the Government to accept it?

In relation to the progress in Europe, we’ve actually had the opportunity to ask questions of the three leading European representatives: Didier Seeuws for the council, Michel Barnier for the Commission, and Guy Verhofstadt for the Parliament. I would love to have an opportunity to actually ask the same questions of the leading UK negotiator, but he is yet to come to us. When we met Michel Barnier he actually—I quote, in a sense—didn’t want a ‘no deal’ situation. He actually wanted a deal and he wants to work in the best interests of both EU-27 and the UK, and he stated that it’s important to note that the UK asked to leave, and as you pointed out, it would not be right to expect the EU-27 to pay for all the commitments made in agreement with the UK in the MFF. As you highlighted just now in your answer, it would be a failure to honour those agreements and it could be problematic. So, who would trust a new trade agreement with a country that doesn’t honour its commitments made properly? So, I think we need to address that, but can you ask the question on—? Leanne Wood highlighted the question of whether you’re contingency planning for a ‘no deal’, but have you done any analysis of a ‘no deal’ situation? Has the UK Government actually discussed with you its impact analysis of a ‘no deal’, which it seems to be failing to actually give to its own Parliament? Has it shared that with the devolved institutions?

Also, on the JMC’s cycle of meetings, I appreciate that you think there’s progress being made, and it’s wonderful to actually see one actually taking place eight months after the last one, but the next one, I understand, is before Christmas. The cycle of negotiations in Brussels are every four weeks, so will you be pushing for more cycles of the JMC(EN) so we can actually have an input into the discussions or the negotiations, better than simply being reported to by the UK Government? And on the customs White Paper—