The Cabinet Secretary, in the course of his statement, said that he couldn't see any advantages from a 'no deal' Brexit. It's inevitable that there would be costs of a 'no deal' Brexit—nobody's ever denied that there would be transitional costs of leaving the EU, in the same way as there were significant transitional costs of joining it in the first place. But the protectionist policies of the EU bear down most heavily upon those at the lower end of the income scale in this country, from a protectionist agricultural policy where tariffs are as high as 50 per cent on the one hand, to taxes on footwear and clothing, and even, through the VAT code, on things like sanitary products and many others that we've frequently referred to in the course of this debate. We will have the freedom, once we're out of the EU, to make our decisions for ourselves in all of these areas, and to get rid of the regressive elements in the trade and tax codes that the EU has forced upon us. I've no fear of the trade consequences of leaving the EU for the longer term.

He referred, as the First Minister did earlier on today—[Interruption.] I've asked several questions up until now and I'll ask a few more as well in the short time that remains to me. It's the EU that will be fundamentally the loser from cutting off trade flows or restricting trade flows, because we have a massive trade deficit with them. Eighty-eight per cent of the cars that are registered in Britain every year actually originate from the EU. We have a trade deficit in cars amounting to millions with Germany alone. Admittedly, there will be problems for certain agricultural sectors if there is no deal, particularly, as we know, for lamb producers, but the sums of money involved here in global terms are small, and can easily be dealt with by a Government that has the will to put in place a system that protects the interests of those who would be disadvantaged. After all, the figures are that we import from abroad £0.4 billion worth of lamb, and we export £0.3 billion, so there was a deficit on imports of lamb. There's massive opportunity for import substitution for British farmers generally if the EU is so stupid as to try to force us into a position where there is no deal, to which they are actually legally committed to find a way to achieve through the Lisbon treaty itself. So, they would be breaking their own laws if they were to carry on the road that they are on.

So, what I ask the Cabinet Secretary to do, with no confidence whatsoever that he'll take my advice, is to become a bit more cheerful and optimistic about the future. Whatever the short-term costs, the long-term gains in democracy for the British people are what this is all about. Why should we want to outsource the making of our laws to a collection of international technocrats who not only do we not elect and cannot dismiss, but we can't even name? This is the very reverse, I think, of what the Labour Party was set up to achieve—to use the forces of parliamentary democracy to benefit working people in this country. The idea that the sort of people who are in international business organisations, like Carolyn Fairbairn, representing the Confederation of British Industry, a body that has been absolutely wrong on every major issue economically in my lifetime, from incomes policy to the European monetary system—the idea that their advice is worth taking seems to me to be bizarre for a Corbynite. Perhaps these contradictions will be explained in another forum.

So, the last question I want to ask the Cabinet Secretary relates to the possibility of a second referendum, because it's quite clear now that the direction that the Labour Party is going in is actually to have a second referendum. Because, whatever deal is done, or if no deal is done, they hope that the British people will take a different decision next time from the one that they took last time. But how many times do we have to have a vote on this issue? They spent 40 years denying us one—since 1975. If we have a second referendum, the British people must be forced to keep on voting until they provide the Labour Party with the result that they want. If we have a second referendum, why not a third, why not a fourth, why don't we make it an annual event like Christmas, because then we will have something to look forward to as politicians every year, something to keep us all in business? So, where does it end? That's what I ask. The British people decided, including the Welsh people, by a majority—they rejected the policies of Plaid Cymru, they rejected the policies of the Labour Party, in the referendum in May 2016. And, therefore, will the Cabinet Secretary not take the votes of the Welsh people, and the British people, at face value, and give them what they want, which is freedom from the EU?