The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, amendment 2 in the name of Caroline Jones, and amendments 3 and 4 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

That brings us to our next item, which is a debate on the second anniversary of the EU referendum. I call on the First Minister.

Motion NDM6741 Julie James

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that it will be the second anniversary of the EU Referendum on 23 June 2018.

2. Reaffirms its support for the approach to EU transition put forward in the White Paper, Securing Wales Future, published by the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru in January 2017 and believes this still provides the best basis for securing a satisfactory outcome to the Brexit negotiations.

Motion moved.

Llywydd, I welcome this opportunity to open this Government debate, bearing in mind that two years have passed since the referendum and the vote to leave the European Union. I think it’s true to say that 23 June 2016 is considered an extremely important date in the history of this nation. That, of course, is when the decision was made to change our relationship with the European Union.  

We are not in this Chamber, Llywydd, this afternoon to debate that decision. As I've always said, it's our responsibility to focus our efforts to deliver the right form of Brexit, not to argue over the fact of Brexit. So, this afternoon, Llywydd, I want to open this debate by discussing the right form of Brexit for Wales.

We've spent a lot of time in this Chamber and in detailed inter-governmental negotiations discussing constitutional issues to make sure the withdrawal Bill genuinely recognises shared governance and respects devolution. Although that was vitally important, this perhaps is not the Brexit issue the people we represent expected us to focus on. While constitutional issues fascinate many, the majority of people will want us to concentrate on bread and butter issues. People in Wales are concerned about whether companies in Wales will take similar decisions to that taken by Jaguar Land Rover and move production from the UK amid the uncertainty created by the UK Government on Brexit. What matters most is that securing the right form of Brexit safeguards the economy, the jobs and well-being of the people of Wales and, indeed, the whole of the UK. Llywydd, all the evidence suggests that in the short to medium term, securing the right Brexit to achieve this requires continued close integration with the economies of our EU neighbours.

In our White Paper agreed with Plaid Cymru, 'Securing Wales' Future', we set out a Welsh plan for Brexit. We set out clearly how the right Brexit for Wales requires agreement for participation in the single market and a customs union. That was our position 17 months ago and no evidence has emerged to challenge our conclusion. Llywydd, in that document, we were clear that this might involve UK membership of the European Free Trade Association and, through that, the European Economic Area or a bespoke agreement to secure full and unfettered access to the single market. Now, clearly, participation in the EEA or EFTA would not, on its own, be sufficient, and that's why the Government will not support amendment 4. There's no contradiction, as suggested by that amendment, because we also need to be part of a customs union and we need barrier-free access for agriculture and fisheries, but it's telling that the European Commission has openly discussed a Norway-plus model for the UK.

So, in January 2017, we set out a viable informed position based on evidence and we've stuck to it. Because, Llywydd, the evidence is clear and compelling: nearly £3 in every £4 earned by Welsh businesses from overseas exports depend on our relationship with our EU partners. The latest statistics published on 7 June show that Welsh exports to EU countries increased by £649 million, or 7 per cent, over the last year. The EU is and will continue to be our most important trading area. Through the EU, we also access free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. With a hard Brexit, it would take decades to replicate that.

Businesses up and down Wales are working hard to grow their export markets, demonstrating that Wales is an open and outward-looking country, but these efforts risk being undermined by the chaotic approach to the negotiations by the UK Government. We are, of course, a little over nine months before—as a default—we leave the EU on 29 March 2019. You would have thought that, at this point, the UK Government would have a clear strategy in place. Instead, we have chaos and confusion on the vital question of our future economic relationship with our biggest and most influential market. On an almost weekly basis, we get a new statement from a Cabinet Member on some element of the deal that they want, only for that to be contradicted or toned down a day later. Two years after the referendum, this is simply not good enough.

In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged that, for many sectors, particularly goods, the interests of industry within the UK require continued regulatory alignment with the single market and a frictionless relationship with the customs union. This alignment on both elements is essential for the frictionless borders that businesses up and down Wales need to make and to sell their goods. Only last week, the retiring president of the Confederation of British Industry said that without a customs union, entire manufacturing sectors that rely on just-in-time supply chains will simply disappear—his words, not mine. Llywydd, we in Wales know about the devastating effect of wholesale closures of key industries and we should have no trust whatsoever in those who are prepared to risk such an outcome in pursuit of an abstract ideological set of priorities. Yet the UK Government remains committed to their red lines that the UK will leave the single market and the customs union, even though these issues were never raised specifically in the referendum. 

On the customs union, it's becoming increasingly clear, even to the UK Government, that their two alternative proposals to resolve the conundrum of how to retain an invisible border, both land and sea, between the UK and Ireland are still to be free to have different customs regimes. Well, that simply does not work. You cannot have one entity in the customs union and one entity out of the customs union and an open land border between them. Two weeks ago, the UK Government published their technical paper on the proposed temporary customs arrangement, designed to provide clarity to their position—the so-called backstop. Now, I understand that the original title for this was the 'customs and regulatory alignment period'—would you believe that acronym—which would've given rise to what is, perhaps, a more appropriate description of the situation. But they had to drop this title, because while the paper proposes that the current customs arrangements remain in place, it's silent on the regulatory alignment required to achieve frictionless borders other than to say that this will be subject, and I quote, 'to further proposals'.

Following a tussle over who it is in the Cabinet who has hold of the steering wheel as the Brexit car careers towards the cliff edge, these arrangements are proposed to be time limited. So, instead of clarity, we had a half-baked solution to half of the problem, with the prospect of a self-imposed cliff edge. And the response from the European Commission? Well, they say key questions are unanswered. They say that this doesn't cover regulatory controls leading to a hard border and questions as to whether this is a backstop, given the proposal is time limited. Well, that's not good enough. The UK is having to put all its efforts into keeping its own troops in line, and is simply ignoring the fact that it is the EU we need to be negotiating with, not with Dominic Grieve and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

So, two years after the EU referendum, there is no viable proposal on customs, despite the implications for Northern Ireland, no clarity on alignment of the single market and no sign of the trade deals that we were told the world would be lining up to give us. We have silence and delay, confusion and chaos, when we need serious answers. Throw into the mix the abandonment of collective responsibilities, where Cabinet Ministers are seemingly free to air views that not only contradict, but are contemptuous of UK Government policy, and you have a potent mix that undermines the UK negotiating position and risks a hard Brexit that will result in lower investment, fewer jobs and depressed living standards, where a senior member of the UK Cabinet suggests that his own Prime Minister should be replaced with Donald Trump, and that person is still in the Cabinet.

That's why, Llywydd, the Government will not support amendment 1 proposed by Paul Davies, or amendment 2 proposed by Caroline Jones. The UK Government needs to deliver a clear position, and one that does not risk our future economic prosperity. Nor will the Government support amendment 3. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance has written to all Assembly Members, I trust, on this matter, addressing the many misconceptions regarding the inter-governmental agreement.

Now, Llywydd, we hear a lot about how inflexible the EU-27 are, but the European Commission has been clear that if the UK Government moves away from its red lines, a much more generous deal can be negotiated. So, the UK Government needs to face up to realities and face down the Brexit lunatic fringe. The UK needs leadership on the most important issue of the day, and deserves better. We have the opportunity, with this debate this afternoon, to call on the UK Government to go back to the drawing board, to rub out the red lines. Wales, and the whole UK, needs a Government that will argue for a dynamic and positive relationship with the single market, where the UK makes a positive commitment to working with the EU-27 to retain alignment with the single market as a regulatory space, and a new, durable customs union with the EU.

Llywydd, 'Securing Wales' Future' still provides the best basis for securing the right Brexit for Wales and, indeed, the whole of the UK. There is no evidence—there is literally no evidence—that has been adduced to support any other outcome being better than being in the customs union. So, Llywydd, I invite this Assembly to reiterate its support for the approach that we have outlined.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Recognises that the UK Government is delivering on the decision made in the EU referendum to leave the EU and that its position in negotiations with the EU should not be undermined.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. In a joint statement after the people of Wales and the UK voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016, the Presidents of the European Commission, European Council and European Parliament said, and I quote,

'We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible.... We hope to have the UK as a close partner of the EU also in the future.'

Now, contrary to offensive claims repeatedly made here that the people did not know what they were voting for, the well-publicised arguments for Brexit at the time were all about taking back control of our money, borders, laws and trade. I, in fact, checked the press this morning on the day of the referendum to see what they were saying. The Prime Minister has made it clear since that, instead of a hard Brexit, she seeks the greatest possible access to the EU through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. As she said, we're leaving the EU, delivering on the decision made by the British people in the referendum:

'We're committed to getting the best Brexit deal for people, delivering control of our money, borders and laws, while building a new deep and special partnership with the EU.'

In contrast, this Welsh Government motion asks us to support the approach endorsed by Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, which would deliver none of these things, and a Brexit in name only. Further, as I said here last month, the think tank Open Europe told the external affairs committee in Brussels—and I quote—'It would be strange if the UK was in the customs union. The EU would negotiate trade agreements with third parties without the UK at the table.' If the UK is in the single market, they said, it would have to accept all the rules without being able to vote on them.

Whilst claiming to respect the referendum result, both the Labour Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have spent the last two years preaching doom and gloom, whilst promoting approaches that would undermine it. They claimed that the agreement secured by the UK Government last December, enabling both sides to move on to the next phase of Brexit talks, would never happen, that the Brexit transition period secured by the UK Government would never be agreed, before then taking the credit for it, and, excepting Mr Drakeford, that a way forward allowing this Assembly to give legislative consent to the UK withdrawal Bill would never be secured. Each time, they were wrong, yet they're doing it again as they seek to undermine current negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, by giving away all our negotiating cards at the outset, and incentivising the EU side to drive a hard bargain.

Our amendment 1, therefore—[Interruption.] Surely if you say to the other side, 'If you refuse to come to an agreement with us, we'll fix it over here afterwards to ensure that we don't actually leave at all'—it's something along those lines. Our amendment 1 therefore

'Recognises that the UK Government is delivering on the decision made in the EU referendum to leave the EU and that its position in negotiations with the EU should not be undermined.'

For centuries, our enemies have sought to divide and destroy us, and as Scottish Conservative MP Ross Thomson said last week, 

'all the SNP cares about is grievance and independence'.

Well, the same applies to Plaid Cymru, where their spoiler approach would have disrupted the UK’s internal market, in which 80 per cent of UK goods and services are traded, destroyed jobs, and driven investment from Wales. As the Prime Minister said in March, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the referendum, it must endure, it must protect people’s jobs and security, it must be consistent—[Interruption.] I'll take one intervention.

Just in terms of your point about enemies causing problems and disruption, can I just remind you it's the Foreign Secretary who has said that these negotiations would be better handled if Donald Trump was in charge? So, he should be directing his ire at his own side, rather than these benches.

Was it 79 or 80 Labour MPs that defied the Labour whip in the Commons last week over the withdrawal Bill?

It must endure. It must protect people's jobs and security. It must be consistent with the kind of country we want to be as we leave: a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant, European democracy. And in doing all of these things, it must strengthen our union of nations and our union of people. The EU, itself, of course, has two added incentives: the £39 billion it will receive if it agrees a trade deal, and the importance of access to the UK. For example, the external affairs committee heard that 10 to 15 per cent of the GDP of Germany’s 16 states is exposed to the UK market.

Labour’s position would mean continuing to follow a swathe of EU rules with absolutely no say in them. This breaks Labour’s Brexit promises, and does not respect the referendum result. Seventy per cent of Labour UK constituencies voted 'leave', and they want to see the result of the referendum honoured. People outside the Parliaments across the UK are getting a little tired of parliamentary games. They want to know when they’re going to get Brexit, when it will be delivered and when it will be done. They don't want to hear the same old stuff, the same old speech from the same old First Minister, month after month, year after year.

I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 2—Caroline Jones

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Recognises that it is the decided will of the people that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

Calls upon politicians opposed to the United Kingdom leaving the EU to respect the wishes of Welsh and British voters and stop trying to undermine the Brexit process.

Calls upon the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to secure the best deal for Wales and the UK, outside the EU, the single market and the customs union.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Caroline Jones. Just over two years ago, the Government published, at the taxpayers' expense, a glossy 16-page document, which went to every house in the country, predicting the end of the world if the British people had the temerity to vote for national self-government. David Cameron made speeches up and down the land warning of the dire consequences, assuming the role of the fat boy in The Pickwick Papers, who said, 

'I wants to make your flesh creep'.

The whole of the business and media establishment, Government, the civil service, were devoted to trying to browbeat the British people into voting to stay in the EU, and yet 17.4 million people—the largest democratic vote ever in the United Kingdom—voted to leave the EU. And in Wales, where a majority of the people voted to leave, the votes were highest in Valleys seats like Blaenau Gwent, which I think holds the prize for the highest percentage of 'leave' voters: two thirds voted to leave. Now, here, I—[Interruption.] Here, I join the First Minister in that part of his speech where he referred to the shambolic negotiations that have been conducted by Theresa May and her Ministers in the last two years. This indicates a total lack of preparation on the part of the UK Government for life post Brexit, which is, I think, a betrayal of what those 17.4 million people voted for. Theresa May is one of those people for whom her indecision is final because the Government ping-pongs around day in and day out, as the First Minister has eloquently described. I never thought I would say this about anybody, but actually Theresa May makes John Major look like a paragon of decisiveness. At the end of two years, nearly, since we had that vote, the upshot is that we're about to become just a non-voting member of the EU, it seems.

I'd like to quote from an article that was just a few days ago published by Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, where he said,

'The United Kingdom is inching toward an open-ended transition period that will leave almost everything as it is. Brussels will continue to run our agriculture, our fisheries, our overseas trade, our employment laws. We shall continue to pump our squillions across the Channel. Our laws will remain subject to Euro-judges. Only one significant thing will change: we shall lose our representation in the EU institutions and, with it, our ability to block harmful new laws. Why is Britain, the world’s fifth economy and fourth military power, contemplating a form of thraldom that none of the EU’s other neighbours—not Albania or Ukraine, never mind Norway—would dream of accepting? Is it sheer ineptness, or do some of our officials actively want it?'

I think the answer to those questions is 'both'. I give way.

Thank you very much. It's ironic to have you quoting back at us that we're going to end up with the worst of all worlds, because that's exactly what the 'remain' campaign warned would happen, but we were assured by you and Nigel Farage that this would be a cinch—it would sort out all these trade deals within 24 hours. We said this was nonsense. You were the one who sold people that pup, and you are the ones who should be apologising for this con trick.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for the Government's failure in a negotiation of which I have had no part. If Nigel Farage and I had been in charge of the negotiations, the outcome would have been very different indeed. [Interruption.] So, I accept the implied compliment from the Member for Llanelli.

It's extraordinary that the Government has not played a stronger hand in these negotiations, because the truth of the matter is that the EU sells every year £135 billion more of goods to us than we sell to them. Trading goods, of course, is covered by the single market legislation, whereas in trading services, where it's the other way around, the UK sells to the EU £92 billion-worth of services more than they sell to us. The single market does not exist in financial services, so we do not get the benefit of the single market to the same extent as the EU. That should have been an enormously powerful bargaining counter in the hands of the British Government, but they've completely blown it. They've made no preparation for no deal. We've got a situation now where budget payments are going to continue to be made but not linked to a trade deal, which is what should have happened right at the start, and the security guarantee that the Government has given to the EU is unconditional without getting anything in return. As a negotiating ploy, they have absolutely failed. The EU has entered these negotiations as a hostile power determined to make them fail to help us remain inside the EU.

The Labour Party's position is absolutely incoherent because they want us to leave the single market but actually stay in the customs union to make it impossible for us to do free trade deals with the rest of the world. I'll finish on this point: Theresa May started these negotiations, saying that no deal would be better than a bad deal. Well, unfortunately, we will be leaving these negotiations with the bad deal. The Conservative Party, I think, has a lot to answer for in these negotiations, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. The result has been, actually, a betrayal of the British people.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne Wood.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets the Welsh Government’s decision to grant consent for the UK Government to restrict the National Assembly for Wales’s legislative competence, despite stating clearly in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ that 'any attempt to do so will be firmly resisted'.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets that a majority of Welsh Labour MPs abstained on a vote on continued single market participation via EEA membership, in contradiction to 'Securing Wales’ Future' which states, 'We cannot support an EU exit agreement that would leave the UK without continued Single Market participation'.

Amendments 3 and 4 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Government's motion is one I can agree with. The Welsh White Paper offers the most comprehensive analysis of Brexit's effect on Wales, and this was, in large part, due to the excellent work of my colleague Steffan Lewis. Why, then, has the Welsh Government failed to stick to it? On powers, on the European Economic Area, and on a range of other issues, Labour is pursuing a Brexit that aligns more with the Conservatives than the White Paper co-authored with Plaid Cymru. At the very least, Labour are enabling or facilitating an extreme Tory Brexit.

An anniversary is a time for reflection, to look back to the referendum and to the campaign. The campaign in Wales for 'remain' lacked serious attention from the key players, and I'll illustrate this point with one example. In the months before the 2016 Assembly election, in anticipation of the EU referendum, I approached the First Minister with a proposal. I outlined a simple but effective plan to put in place the infrastructure for a Welsh 'remain' campaign made up of representatives of Welsh civic society. I proposed that the trade unions should form the core of this group. With their vast reach and interest in a 'remain' vote, I knew that a cross-party civic group could leverage the influence of the unions, of charities, of church groups and so on to reach the people who were critical to reach for the referendum vote.

During this period, you will remember, I'm sure, that we were also gearing up for the National Assembly elections, which happened just a month before the EU referendum. Many of us opposed the idea that the two ballots should be held so close together. However, once it became clear that that timeline was unmoveable, I turned my focus to the task in hand. My offer to the First Minister was a genuine one: join with me to build a civic society organisation to campaign for a 'remain' vote. It was always going to be difficult to advocate for the status quo. We needed to organise, organise, organise. I was told by the First Minister that the trade unions were too busy campaigning and fundraising for Labour for the Assembly election. The First Minister refused to use his greatest campaigning tool—the unions and others—for the national good. The First Minister was confident that 'leave' would not win. 'Look at all the other referendums', he said. Well, look where we ended up. They failed to use the office of First Minister to pull together a successful campaign, like we did in 2011 and in 1997. Had you done that, we might have had a different result, and I wonder if you regret that now.

Until recently, I'd believed that there was a remote chance that Labour would support policies that would see Wales take the least damaging path when it came to our exit from the European Union. Following votes on our membership of the single market and their deal with the Tories on the Assembly's powers, it's clear that that isn't going to be the case. That takes me on to Plaid Cymru's first amendment.

Would the Member give way?

The Government's claim that they remain committed to the White Paper is a claim that they've made again today, and I want to remind them of the exact wording. On page 20, the White Paper says any attempt to claw back powers will be 'firmly resisted'. When we agreed to co-author this paper, we did not consider firm resistance to amount to an agreement with the Conservative Westminster Government that sees powers in 24 to 26 policy areas clawed back, and herein lies the problem. The wording of the White Paper remains something that I am committed to. The Welsh Government, however, has pursued policies that are not reflective of it.

Let's take Labour's position on the single market. As reflected in the second Plaid Cymru amendment, the majority of Labour MPs chose to abstain on a key amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill that would have kept Wales in the single market. Now, I accept that the First Minister may say that he is committed to a future where Wales participates in the single market—

Will the Member give way?

Are you giving way, Leanne Wood?

—but the actions of his party do not reflect that. He says one thing and does another, and, for this reason, Plaid Cymru will be pressing both of our amendments to a vote, and we will be doing that to reflect the fact that, although we remain supportive of the White Paper, the actions of the Labour Party indicate that they are not. So, I therefore formally move both the Plaid Cymru amendments, 3 and 4. Diolch yn fawr.

The last two years have not produced a solution that is going to give the people of Wales who voted to leave what they wanted, which was control of their own destiny. The White Paper that was published two years ago was the most comprehensive strategy laid out to indicate what was needed, but clearly we don't have the powers that we would like to control what the UK Government has got up to. So, we're now in the situation where we are mere months away from what looks like an inevitable departure from the EU. 

The external affairs committee took evidence a couple of weeks ago from Professor John Bell, who is a leading legal expert based at Cambridge University. I think that what he had to say made it very clear to me that those who are campaigning for a second referendum to be put to the people of the United Kingdom are running out of time. Because, it is simply not possible for us to reverse a process that was started with the article 50 trigger, unless we also go through the process of consulting with the European Parliament and with the 27 other members of the European Union.

So, according to Professor Bell, the very last date that a referendum could be held is this November, because otherwise there is not time for the European Parliament to deliberate on whether they approve of that, were we to reverse the decision that was taken two years ago. Also, it would require us to obtain a unanimous vote by the other 27 Governments, which would mean a huge lobbying exercise with all these Governments that have frankly lost faith in us because of the way in which we've turned away from Europe. So, I would argue that D-day of 31 December 2020 looks inevitable.

I would like to confine the rest of my remarks to the bread-and-butter issues that the First Minister referred to, which is what most people are concerned about, rather than the minutiae of the constitutional issues that leaving the European Union poses. 

I think the hubris from the Prime Minister over the weekend, indicating that a lot of money could be invested in the national health service as a result of a Brexit dividend, is pure fantasy, because we have already spent most of the money that we might get back from the European Union. We're going to need it to set up the new regulatory agencies. We've currently relied on that work to be done by the EU institutions, and it's obviously much cheaper to do it in conjunction with another 27 countries than it is to do it on our own.

I want to look at the biggest bread-and-butter issue, which is food, and the substantial impact that Brexit has already had on the amount of money that households are having to pay for food simply because of the deterioration in the value of the pound. The UK imports approximately 40 per cent of the food we consume as a nation, and nearly all of it is from the European Union. We import £9 billion-worth of vegetables and fruit from Europe, compared with £1 billion-worth of fruit and vegetables that are grown in the United Kingdom. Ninety-five per cent of our fruit comes from abroad and half our vegetables are imported. If we were to not be able to stay in a customs union, that would lead to a massive spike in the price of vegetables and fruit because of the tariffs that would be imposed inevitably if we were to move to WTO arrangements. 

Looking ahead, though, we have opportunities to shape our future, because we currently subsidise all the foodstuffs we eat too much of—animal protein, fat, oils and sugar—and very few of the things we need to eat more of, mainly horticulture. So, we don't even know at the moment whether the pillar 1 payments will continue to be paid, which is currently 80 per cent of all farm subsidies. What would be the impact on our food production if pillar 1 payments are no longer made, and how are we going to ensure that we are still able to feed our population a healthy diet in the event of things going badly wrong in our relationship with Europe, which we are still going to be part of whatever happens? These are the major issues that we now face and we need to start planning for.  

Just to pick up where Jenny Rathbone left off with some of the figures that will impact Wales if we continue with this hardest of Brexits, as is likely to happen with the decisions taken in Westminster by two parties at the moment—we will lose as much as £5 billion from the Welsh economy. Many of us recall going into a darkened room over in Caspian Point to read the Government’s own analysis of the impact on Wales if we were to leave the single market, where the decline in Welsh GDP would be almost 10 per cent, or 5 per cent under some sort of free trade agreement, and even if we were to remain in the single market, it would fall by 1.5 per cent, because the areas that voted most strongly for Brexit are the areas that are going to suffer most as a result of the current Brexit proposals being espoused by the Westminster Government.

It’s true to say that a number of predictions as to what may happen if the nation voted for Brexit have turned out to be incorrect, but it's a fact, as Jenny Rathbone referred to, that the Bank of England has said that we are £900 per household worse off now, even though Brexit hasn’t yet happened, and that is down to the strength of the pound.

The single market is crucial to Wales, as is the customs union. Sixty-one per cent of exports go directly to the rest of the European Union, and that compares with less than 50 per cent across the whole of the UK. And if we look at growth, the English economy will grow 1.7 per cent this year, and the Welsh economy will grow by just 1.3 per cent, whilst Ireland, in the eurozone, will grow 5.7 per cent this year, and that is true generally speaking.

Therefore, the decision to leave the European Union is going to have a very detrimental impact on the most disadvantaged citizens of Wales, and we need to safeguard, and it is the job of this Assembly and the Welsh Government to defend those most vulnerable people with regard to the impact of decisions taken as a result of Brexit. That’s why I’m disappointed, not so much with the motion before us, because, as Leanne Wood said, we would be able to support the wording of the motion, but with the actions of the Labour Party since the vote, which have become more and more uncertain, and they have become more and more of a midwife to a hard Brexit proposed by a Conservative Government. 

When you vote for something as disruptive as Brexit, you have to be careful what you wish for. I don't think many of us expected that a Brexit vote would end up with a Prime Minister, under the title of 'Taking back control', appearing on The Andrew Marr Show and saying, 'Parliament can't tell the Government what to do', which is precisely what Parliaments are supposed to tell Government and has been since 1688 and has been since we had what the English like to call 'the glorious revolution', but I'm sure the Irish don't. But we have to bear in mind that this—[Interruption.] In a second, if I may. We have to bear in mind as well this line that we are strengthening the union. How do you strengthen the union—which, of course, Plaid Cymru is not necessarily in favour of, anyway, but, nevertheless, let's look at these arguments—how do you strengthen the union when what you're doing is impoverishing the weakest parts of that union, and when you know that the union itself has not delivered regional policy that addresses that? But the European Union, of course, has done that, but we're moving out of that. 

Just on that point, I'll give way.  

I just want to point out that the UK Parliament has told the UK Government what to do. It has very clearly said that it will not tolerate a hard Brexit, and that we have to acknowledge. 

I'm not sure if I completely agree because we'll wait and see what happens tomorrow with the further iteration of this process. What I was referring to, however, was the idea that the Prime Minister can actually get away with saying something as radical as that. I'm very interested in this because I have a Westminster and a Wales view in these sorts of things sometimes, and I just look at it from the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control and all the other things we were told by Mr Isherwood, and the reality is that the UK as a structure and as a Government in the UK is completely and utterly incapable of dealing with the biggest peacetime issue that we've seen for a century. It's completely and utterly incapable of doing it. And that just strikes me as something that leads to all sorts of contentious things that could flow on from that, including the future of the union itself. Now, Plaid Cymru is not here to defend the union, but we are here to defend our communities and we are here to stop anything happening in the next year or two that will take away from those communities the ability for them to control their futures and for them to have a realistic economic state in those futures.

I'll conclude, if I may, Llywydd, with a simple quote, which I think reflects very well on what the Labour Party's been doing over the last 18 months, and it says this:

'When the history books come to be written, and the path to Brexit analysed, Jeremy Corbyn's role will be seen as crucial.' 

That was in the Daily Mail. [Laughter.]

I don't intend to go over a lot of the statistics and the ground that we continually debate in this Chamber. So, there are two areas I wanted to focus on. One is what I call the 'conspiracy of incompetence', which I believe has taken over the Government, and the other is a more serious point in respect of the undermining of parliamentary democracy. In July 2016, David Davis said that, within two years, the UK could negotiate a free-trade area massively larger than the EU. And he was followed by Liam Fox in July 2017, who said—the International Trade Secretary said that negotiating a new British trade deal with the EU would be one of the easiest in history. 

We get to a stage now where the only things we seem to have agreed is that there's a £39 billion divorce bill, Northern Ireland is going to be in chaos, and the biggest danger that we face is absolutely no deal, and you wonder how we can get to a situation where a Government is bringing us so close to a dangerous no-deal situation. You can almost put it down to a conspiracy of incompetence, where you can almost see the hardline Brexiteers saying, 'The more incompetent we can be, the more likely we're going to get what we actually want to achieve.' That might sound as though that's really a bit of speculation, but then you have to actually listen to the actual words that came from Boris Johnson, one of the senior players in this, the Foreign Secretary. These are the actual words from Boris Johnson. Here we go:

'You've got to face the fact there may now be a meltdown. Okay? I don't want anybody to panic during the meltdown. No panic. Pro bono publico, no bloody panic. It's going to be all right in the end.'

And then he followed it on by saying,

'I am increasingly admiring of Donald Trump. I have become more and more convinced that there is method in his madness. Imagine Trump doing Brexit'.

This is from our Foreign Secretary. Well, the reality is that we don't need Donald Trump, because we've got our own Trump trio of Theresa May, David Davis and Boris Johnson. When I was reading this, I saw a tweet that came through that said that even Baldrick had a plan. [Laughter.]

Coming on to the point of undermining parliamentary democracy, the whole article 50 case was actually about the UK Government wanting to bypass Parliament, diminishing the actual role of Parliament. Even the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in the format it came in to us was about Government bypassing Parliament through the creation of Henry VIII powers and centralising Government. Of course, the Grieve amendment, which is coming up tomorrow, is again an extremely important matter, because this is about the fundamentals of giving Parliament a voice, and one would have suspected that the whole purpose of the Brexit referendum, as we were told, was about actually restoring parliamentary democracy.

Lord Hailsham in the House of Lords said the Government's offer 

'not only fails to deliver the promised meaningful vote...but is far worse...as the Government are seeking to make the promised meaningful vote impossible...It deliberately removes the possibility'.

And we see the response to this in the papers is that people who speak in such ways of talking about supporting parliamentary democracy are called 'traitors'. They're called 'enemies of the people'. We risk, I believe, a collapse of parliamentary democracy if the Grieve amendment or some subsequent amendment is not approved that gives Parliament a voice. And it is a total irony, isn't it, that we could end up with a situation where, as a result of the loss of parliamentary sovereignty, we risk having fewer powers in Parliament than if we'd remained in the European Union? There is, in my view, a significant threat to the rule of law. There is an undermining of parliamentary democracy. I believe the only way out of this is that we actually need a general election. We need a Government that actually has a new mandate, because at the moment all we actually have is a Government whose sole motivation, whose sole rationale for existence, is self-preservation, and that is not putting the interests of the nation first.

Can I start by perhaps reminding people I think, unfortunately, the UK will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 because Theresa May will hang on to power and will undoubtedly take us out, because she's made that abundantly clear? But the question is on what terms we leave, and that's the biggest question for all of us in our political careers, I think, coming ahead.

As Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee I've had the opportunity to actually see the complexities and the complications that we have faced over the last two years and will face in the future, and the potential consequences we must overcome because of these complexities. Can I put, at this point, on record the excellent work done by the Commission staff in always presenting us as Members with information as to the goings on both in Westminster and Europe so that we can have an understanding of some of the issues that are being raised throughout this whole process?

For our communities across Wales, and the whole of the UK, it's vital that we do leave the EU with the very best deal available to us, and, for me, there's no doubt that no deal on 29 March is a disastrous one for everyone. The noises coming from Brussels, unfortunately, over the last couple of days are that diplomats of the EU's 27 are prepared for a statement after next week's Council meeting that will express a view that a no-deal scenario is now a real possibility, particularly as the UK Government has continued to fail to produce a White Paper on its position on the future of the EU, and on any relationships. I hope they're wrong. I really do hope they're wrong on this, and that that statement doesn't happen. The stakes are far too high for everyone to simply walk away into the unknown of WTO rules. This uncertainty could become a reality. Just go and ask your businesses in your local constituencies if you don't believe me—

Will the Member give way? [Inaudible.]—says he wants a good deal, but he says he cannot conceive, under any circumstances, walking away. How could any business negotiate with another business in his constituency and hope to get a good deal if the other side knows they'll accept what they're given, whatever?

I'll come on to this, because it's a very interesting point. It's clear to me that the current Government has no negotiating skills whatsoever, is actually going into the negotiations not understanding that negotiation is a two-way process, and you have to understand both sides' arguments and where both sides wish to get to. It is clear that the UK Government doesn't understand that and is going into this thinking that it has the sole given right to actually dictate the way it wants, and not recognising the other side's position. That is not the way to negotiate, and, in fact, they might want to go to the trade unions and learn a bit about negotiations.

Now, the hard fact is that Theresa May actually fails to stand up to the hard Brexiteers in her own party, and, as has already been mentioned, those in her Cabinet in particular. So, there's a very real possibility that she cannot get a deal because they will not allow her to have one. That's going to be catastrophic for us. It will mean lower export figures, lower growth, lower investment, fewer jobs, and smaller incomes. That's what our constituents may face as a consequence of that. Terrible news for Wales, and, let's be honest, it's terrible news for the whole of the UK—every part of the UK.

Now, let's be clear, I've heard twice already today about the fact that, if we raise these issues, we are moaning and trying to derail the Brexit process. It's not about derailing. It's about getting the right deal for our people, the ones we represent. Failure to speak up is a failure to do our job. It is important that we make sure that the Brexit that will happen is done to give us the best options. People's resilience and determination to protect the future of the UK outside of the EU should not be confused or misunderstood as an intent to subvert it. It's just a smokescreen to hide the failures of a Tory Government. The challenge of building a path that offers a strong future outside the EU has been made more difficult by the failures of the UK Government, the weakness and the lack of a coherent strategy. It's damaging the UK; it's making us a laughing stock, to be honest, and there's no good in that. They don't have a strategy in place, they don't have ideas, they haven't told the EU what they want to try and achieve. What would you expect? If I went into negotiations, I'd know exactly what I wanted to try and do. The EU has told us what their negotiating stance is; they're not hiding it. We are. There we go.

We've seen throughout the discussions and we heard today from Neil Hamilton, 'Shift the blame to the EU.' Well, I'm sorry to say, 'Shift the blame to the Tories, because they're the ones that are failing.' The EU have been clear from day 1 what they want and what their target is, the Tories are just trying to protect and hide because they haven't got a clue what they want. It's important that we address this matter. Mick Antoniw has also said that tomorrow will be another interesting question when the debate comes back to the Tory party, 'Do you accept a meaningful vote or not?' It's chaos up there; it is total chaos and we are the ones paying the price.

There's a long way to go in these negotiations, there's a lot of work to be done and just to quote a famous person, Michel Barnier, because we all talk about him, 'The clock is ticking', and the lack of negotiating skills is not helping us whatsoever. Compromise and pragmatism are required and, inevitably, both sides will have to give way in certain areas—that's what negotiating means. Their job is to come to an agreed outcome that protects jobs and provides security for future generations of the UK and of the EU, and I second that: both sides need to look at it.

Llywydd, I've often stated that, on 23 June 2016, the British people voted to leave the EU; they did not vote to leave Europe. The question put to them was about the EU. They certainly did not vote to see us disadvantaged because the political elite in London failed to negotiate a good deal.

I'm moved to contribute briefly to this debate by the comments made by the leader of Plaid Cymru that she had her own cunning plan, two years ago, to create a campaign and approached the First Minister to do so. I have no knowledge of that conversation, but I'm surprised that it's taken her two years to reveal this cunning plan.

I would say this: she and I both sat on the steering committee in 2011 of the Yes for Wales cross-party devolution campaign, and it was hard enough in that campaign to get civil society and the churches and charities that she talked about to work together in any effective, meaningful way, and I was on that committee partly as a representative of civil society. It's a seductive fantasy, I think, that she's basing this argument on. Since then, the lobbying Act has been passed, which put the fear of God into charitable organisations that they could take part in a referendum campaign. I was part of some early conversations, about nine months before the referendum, with a loose group of civil society organisations to see if there was some appetite to do something similar for the EU referendum, and there really wasn't any will to do it. I'm as critical as anybody of the 'remain' campaign and as frustrated as she is in the result, but it is a seductive fallacy to suggest that the result that happened could've been saved had we all come together on a campaign.

Will you take an intervention?

I will give her the courtesy that she denied me, yes.

Do you think leadership has got anything to do with this and were trade unions bound by the same legislation that you're talking about?

The trade unions were bound by the same legislation. Of course it's about leadership and of course there are questions for us all to answer about the way that that referendum was conducted, and the timing of it was clearly unfortunate, but I think this is fantasy politics. And also, it misunderstands the depth of feeling amongst her own constituents about what that referendum was about. 'If only a couple of well-meaning worthies came together and got a little campaign going, all would've been well'; I wish that were so. I really don't believe it is so. I'm surprised it's taken her two years to reveal that and I think it's dangerous thinking to try and dig this up now, to try and score political points to suggest that she had the answer all along. It's nonsense.

I would say, the leaders of that Brexit vote, the foreign Secretary, David Davis and Liam Fox, are the ones now leading this negotiation to follow through the words that we all said were nonsense, but we should be holding them to account. The White Paper that we negotiated jointly between Labour and Plaid Cymru was a good moment, I think, in us looking at our common interests and I'm sorry that we're now starting to turn on each other. We should be turning our fire on the Tories who made promises we knew they wouldn't keep. And, instead of coming up with fantasy—I'm finishing at this point—with fantasy versions of history that all would've been well, I think, come on, we need to do better than that and turn our fire on those people who made promises that are now falling apart.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

The fundamental problem with the question of Brexit is this, isn't it, Llywydd, that, back in 2016, people were asked to vote for an idea and not a plan? We had a referendum in 1997, we had another referendum in 2011, where if people so chose, they could look at a document that would tell them what would happen if they voted 'yes'. There was no question about it, there was no ambiguity—it was there, written down in black and white. But the problem is that people were asked to vote for an idea, and there will be very different interpretations of that vote in this Chamber—of course there are. None of them can be proven or disproven, because the problem is that there are some that are very, very hard Brexiteers who are almost like religious fundamentalists that take the view, 'You must take all of this literally—people wanted to leave everything with an "in Europe" in it.' And I'm only slightly exaggerating there. And there will be others who are far more pragmatic, as we are, who look to get a Brexit that works for Wales. That's the fundamental problem here: the vote itself, the question itself, was flawed in terms of what people were being asked to do. 

I listened to what Mark Isherwood had to say. It is the case that people did not raise with me the issue of the single market or the customs union—they didn't know what they were. All they knew was what the European Union did, and even then they weren't sure because people said to me, 'I want to make sure that we get out of the European convention on human rights', which has nothing to do with the European Union. So, it wasn't the most well-informed referendum in that sense. I don't suppose there's any referendum that's particularly well-informed, because people always vote for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum. I heard more people telling me that they wanted to kick the Tories than said to me they wanted to leave the EU. That's the reality of any referendum. 

Mark Isherwood also said—[Interruption.] Yes, of course. 

Isn't it the reality that there was no discussion of the customs union because the EU was set up as a customs union? It was taken as a given that leaving the EU meant leaving the customs union, and when the single market became part of the campaign, the 'Leave' campaign and particularly Michael Gove were absolutely clear that voting to leave meant leaving the single market, as well as the customs union? 

No, because you would have to be in the EU to be in the customs union; that's the whole point. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are in the customs union; they're not in the EU. If you look, for example, Turkey is in the customs union; it's not in the EU. The two things are not coterminous; that's the whole point, and here we are back again with the crux of the problem that in 2016, there wasn't a document that people could refer to that told them exactly what would happen if they voted a certain way. 

Will you give way on that point?

Can I say quite simply this to him? He will remember, as I will, although not everybody in this Chamber will, the series Fawlty Towers. There comes a point where the Major in Fawlty Towers makes the mistake of looking for Germans and Basil Fawlty has to say to him, 'War's over.' And the war is over. The EU is not a hostile power. The EU is not sitting there in Calais looking at the cliffs of Dover with malign intent. The EU is our partner and we need to make sure that we negotiate with them as a partner and not as a hostile power, as he put it. 

It would be remarkable if the EU didn't export more in value to the UK than the UK exported back to the EU. Quite simply, the EU is much bigger than the UK, of course it's going to do that. But the percentage of exports from the EU to the UK is much smaller than the percentage of exports that goes from the UK to the EU. That's the difference. It's not the actual volume; it's the percentage that is important. 

Again he makes the point that if he'd have been in charge we'd all be done. Well, Nigel Farage said we'd have a deal with the US in 48 hours. All right, he was saying it with tongue in cheek—well, you could never tell with him if it was tongue in cheek. In a debate he made it up as he went along; you couldn't contradict it. But the reality is, is he really saying that the US is waiting there to do a deal with the UK on terms that are favourable to the UK? I don't believe that. The rhetoric, surely, of the US President shows otherwise. 

I listened to what Leanne Wood said. I'll just remind her that she and I, on this issue, are on the same side. She reminds me of somebody playing on a rugby team who runs around the pitch trying to tackle members of her own side, rather than focusing on the opposition over there. They are the opposition over there. They are the people who are trying to deny a sensible Brexit to the people of Wales. [Interruption.] In a second, I'll let you in. In a second, okay. 

I said to her at the time I thought it was naive to have a cross-party campaign in the middle of an election. We spent all our time knocking lumps out of each other as part of the democratic process. The electorate weren't going to buy it a week later that we were suddenly all friends again. It doesn't work that way. The timing was wrong. She is right, I said to David Cameron, 'Don't have the referendum in June— 

That's why we lost.

—have it in the autumn so the elections are out of the way.' [Interruption.] If I've got time, Llywydd.

Yes.

Thank you. Well, I hope, First Minister, you're not going to disillusion me now, because I've just heard from Plaid Cymru that the fact that the remainers lost the referendum lies squarely on the shoulders of the First Minister.

The reality is David Cameron bears a lot of responsibility, I'm afraid, because I said to him, 'Don't hold it in June, hold it in September.' He thought he could win the referendum as he had in Scotland. That was the problem. He was still riding on what had happened in Scotland and, as a result, there was complacency there. It was something that I did say to him at the time.

I have to say to the leader of Plaid Cymru that she is suggesting that the focus should have been on fighting the EU referendum after the election was over, but her focus in the first week was doing a deal with the Tories and UKIP to get herself elected as First Minister. [Interruption.] I haven't got time, unfortunately. 

There are two more points that I have to make. First of all, Jenny Randerson made the—of all people. Jenny Rathbone made the point that we are not ready to deal with a customs union. Ports are not ready, I made that point last week. Nothing has been done in the ports to facilitate the movement of goods through the ports. The UK Government will blame the ports, I've no doubt about that, if there are delays in those ports.

Simon Thomas makes a perfectly correct point when he says that, in the campaign for the referendum, it was said time and time again—it was always the UK Parliament, we weren't mentioned—power must return to Parliament, except when Parliament doesn't agree with us. That's the Brexiteer message.

If you want to look for an interpretation of where people stand, people were offered the chance last year to vote for a hard Brexit as proposed by the Prime Minister and the people said, 'No thanks.' They said, 'We want something different, we don't want the Brexit the Conservative Party proposed.' It's time now for some realism. It's time now for some humility on behalf of the Conservative Party in London. But, above all, it's time for us to see leadership in London, as we have in Wales, to deliver a sensible Brexit, which is what I believe the people of Wales voted for. 

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this whole item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung.