The Chairman of the external affairs committee just complained that this is a debate about a semantic distinction, but the semantic distinction was one that was introduced by his party, of course. That's the whole point of this. But I think I can help him, actually, to reinforce the point that was made by Adam Price a minute ago. On the European Commission's own website, it says that

'The Customs Union is a foundation of the European Union and an essential element in the functioning of the single market. The single market can only function properly when there is a common application of common rules at its external borders. To achieve that, the 28 national customs administrations of the EU act as though they were one.'

That is the whole point. That is the point of a union in this particular instance. Now, I've taken a different view both from his party and Plaid Cymru on the merits of remaining in the European Union, but I'm with Plaid Cymru in their interpretation of this debate in this respect: that what the Labour Party is now putting forward is incoherent and it's a sticking plaster to try to cover over the disputes within their own party on the question of whether we should remain members of the European Union. Nobody seriously believes the European Commission is going to have a special customs union deal for Britain. They keep telling us that cherry-picking is not allowed in relation to the single market or the customs union. It's take it or leave it—whatever they put forward to us. So, the Labour Party proposals are a non-starter, and I simply don't understand how any intelligent person in the Labour Party could believe that this is serious.

Jeremy Corbyn is very worried about the EU's rules on state aids, the EU's competition policy, and its rules on procurement, but he has to accept that the EU's rules on each of those vitally important areas, which relaxations could enable the Labour Party to realise some of its policy aspirations, are just not on offer from the European Union. What I really don't understand about those who think that we should be members of the customs union or a customs union but we're not going to be members of the EU is why they want to outsource the international trade policy of the United Kingdom to people who are not responsible ultimately to our voters and not responsible to our UK Parliaments in their various jurisdictions. This is utter absurdity to me.

I can see there are arguments for remaining inside the EU, although I don't share them, but I can see no argument whatsoever for being outside the EU and allowing other people to legislate for us and have no say or vote in their decisions. The common external tariff is changing all the time, every month, and sometimes in very significant particulars. For example, the tax on oranges—the input of oranges into the EU has gone up from 4 per cent to 17 per cent in the last few years. This applies to all sorts of goods that are listed in this very complicated document, which sets out what the tariffs on different products are. Surely, we want to be able to decide for ourselves what taxes are going to be imposed upon products, particularly food products and other staples of daily life—clothing, footwear and so many things that affect the spending power of people on low incomes. What I don't understand about the position of Labour and Plaid Cymru is that the common external tariff, as it applies in practice, is generally against the interests of the third world or developing countries—whatever we like to call them—against the interests of ordinary people, and particularly those who are on low incomes. This is what they seek to defend. If they had been Members of this Assembly or Members of the United Kingdom Parliament in the 1840s, they would have been defending the corn laws. I give way.