Well, Llywydd, I think I heard two questions in that. The first question was: why don't I cheer up? And I hope I set out for you all the reasons why a sensible person will not be approaching this autumn in a spirit of empty optimism.

The second question was about a second referendum. I've said plainly that my own belief is that, if you have a deadlocked House of Commons, you need a new House of Commons, through a general election. As I understand it, to talk of a second referendum is not about reversing the first referendum, although I think we can speculate—and it would not be unfair of us to speculate—that, had the Member found himself on the losing side of the last referendum, by a very narrow majority, he would not be sitting there, saying, 'Oh, well, the British people have spoken, I will never ask that question again.' But, of course, it's apparently impossible for people on the other side to ask the same question again. The question of a second referendum is not on whether to leave the European Union—it's whether the terms of the deal negotiated are satisfactory to people. I think that's a different question, and I think it's not improper for people to think that that is the right way to ask people, as to whether or not, having decided to leave the European Union—is this what you thought it would mean and is this what you thought you were voting for? That's not an unfair question to ask people. If I buy a vacuum cleaner in a shop today, I have 28 days to take it back to the shop if it doesn't do the job that I thought it was going to do when I bought it. And if I can do that for a vacuum cleaner, then asking people, 'Having made the decision to leave the European Union, is this particular deal what you think you were voting for?'—I don't think it's right simply just to dismiss that.

In amongst everything else, Llywydd, I think you hear two or three of the emerging narratives of those people who tried to persuade people in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. When it all goes as badly wrong as some of us fear that it might, the accusations will be of betrayal at home and intransigence abroad. Everything would have been fine if it wasn't for the fact that those people in charge of it—David Davis, Boris Johnson, those well-known people, determined to stay in the European Union—. If it hadn't been for them, everything would have been fine. And if it isn't for them, it's all the fault of foreigners. We heard that emerging clear as you like this afternoon. Then we hear, on the one hand, of course it will be fine anyway. Apparently, driving licences will work, although we're told they won't if we have a no-Brexit. I wonder if the Member had spotted today, in his talk of German car manufacturers, that BMW has said that it will shut its main British manufacturing factory for several weeks immediately after 29 March next year. It's a decision they've already taken, because they fear that the channel tunnel will be blocked for two weeks—that they will not be able to move parts from one part of the European Union to another. Far from German car manufacturers being in favour of new free trade deals with the United Kingdom, they are taking steps now to deal with the consequences of the course of action that he and his party have advocated.

And then we hear, if it's not going to be fine straight away, then don't worry—in the longer run, it will all be fine. Well, I wonder whether people who heard messages during the referendum campaign, and saw busses going up and down their streets with large sums of money advertised on the side of them, realised that this wasn't going to happen as a result of leaving the European Union—it was as a result of of some long-distant future when a period of immiseration had been survived and everything would be fine for those who were left. Really, it doesn't stack up. The Member knows it doesn't stack up, but he makes his normal attempt to persuade us of it this afternoon.