8. Will the First Minister provide an update on the Welsh Government's preferred outcome from the ongoing Brexit negotiations? OAQ52648

It is to be found in the White Paper 'Securing Wales' Future'.  

I thank the First Minister for that uninformative reply. But I'm sure the First Minister will agree with me that Theresa May has badly bungled the negotiations with Brussels. The Chequers proposals were always going to be stillborn, no real preparations have been made for leaving the EU without a deal, and there isn't much time left to negotiate a free trade agreement such as the one that was agreed with Canada. Where does the Labour Party stand in all this? Sir Keir Starmer, the Brexit spokesman for Labour in the UK, seems to have said that Labour will vote against anything that Theresa May comes up with, or is allowed to come up with, between now and next March. Jeremy Corbyn, with whom I marched through many lobbies voting against EU legislation over the years, seems to be sitting on the fence. Keir Starmer seems to have made it clear that he wants a second referendum, come what may, whereas John McDonnell, on the other hand, says that, whilst he's in favour of a people's vote on whatever emerges, it shouldn't include the option of leaving the EU. What does the First Minister think? Should there be a second referendum in which there is an option for leaving the EU or not?

The first thing to say is that there is increasing mood music in this Chamber and outside that if there is no deal and, therefore, a disaster, it'll be the fault of the remainers and not the fault of those who gave a pie-in-the-sky analysis two years ago of what the referendum would mean. We were told it'd be the easiest negotiation ever. It hasn't been. We were told that the EU would fold in the face of the UK's demands. It hasn't done. We were told that German car manufacturers would ride to the rescue—or drive to the rescue—and would force the German Government to accept a deal in favour of the UK. They haven't done it. The reality is that the UK is more divided than the EU has been at all in the course of this process.

Now, he asked my view on it. First of all, to put this in context, I've heard his party argue strongly against a second referendum, and yet he was a member of a party who, for eight years, argued strongly for a second referendum after 1997, because they didn't like the result, and went into the 2005 general election on a manifesto of having a second referendum on the existence of the Assembly. So, there's a certain level of double standards there that has to be recognised.

Now, what do I think should happen? Firstly, if there is no agreement on a deal—in other words, that means 'no deal' or no agreement on a proposed deal—in not just Westminster but this place and Edinburgh as well, I don't see any alternative other than a general election, and, in that general election, Brexit would be the only topic, I suspect, of discussion. In that general election, it is right to say that the issue could be given a proper airing and the people could decide. If, however, the result of that general election was inconclusive, well, how else do you then resolve the issue, other than by going back to the very people who made the decision in the first place but who now would be in a position to see exactly what Brexit would mean? 

Now, to me, that is the point where a second referendum becomes something that would need to be looked at, because how else do you resolve the situation? At this moment in time, I think we have to wait and see what happens in October and November and then take decisions from there.   

But, in terms of a general election in the event of an impasse in the House of Commons, what does the First Minister think would be achieved by any outcome that is possible there, because, of course, both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn want to take us out of the single market and the customs union? So, surely a choice of hard Brexits isn't a choice at all.

And I notice that, in his reply to Mr Hamilton, he failed to answer one very important and timely question, which is the fact that, if there is to be a referendum on the deal or 'no deal' scenarios, should there also be a question there asking the people whether or not they wish to remain in the European Union?  

I think that's likely. I think that there are two possibilities here, are there not? If there's no deal, then it would be 'no deal' or remain. If there is a deal, it becomes a bit more complicated, in the sense that it's: 'Do you accept the deal? But, if you don't, what do you want: "no deal" or remain?' There are ways in which the Electoral Commission, I'm sure, can finesse that referendum. But, if there's no deal on the table, well, surely people have the right to express a view as to whether they wish to leave in circumstances that not one Brexiteer suggested would happen. Nobody said two years ago, 'If there's no deal, it doesn't matter.' No-one said it. Everyone said, 'There will be a deal.' That's changed.

I don't like the idea of a second referendum on exactly the same issue, which is why I opposed a second referendum in 1997. But, where the circumstances have changed fundamentally, where the promises that were made two years ago have come to nothing, then, at that point, and if there's an inconclusive result in a general election—. Who knows what parties might put forward in a general election? I'm sure the Lib Dems will put forward something quite different again. I'm sure his party will as well. But there has to come a point where, if there is an impasse, the people have to decide, and they have to be allowed to decide on the basis of what they know now and not on what they were told two years ago, which hasn't happened.  

Thank you. [Interruption.] Thank you. Thank you very much, First Minister.