7. Will the First Minister make a statement on whether the Welsh Government supports a further EU referendum? OAQ52696

Well, if the Prime Minister is unable to secure agreement on the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU, to my mind, there should be a general election. If there's no general election or if a general election throws up an inconclusive result, how else can the issue be resolved other than through a second referendum?

It could be resolved by doing what you said in 2016, First Minister, when you said that you respected the result of the referendum—that you accepted the decision made by the people and would not work against the referendum result. Even in March this year, you said,

'I am not questioning Brexit—the UK is leaving the EU.'

Notwithstanding what you said before, isn't it clear, First Minister, from your answer today and your amendment tomorrow that you want to betray the democratic decision of the people of Wales?

Could I remind the Member that he sits on the benches of a party that, for eight years, demanded a second referendum on devolution. The 1997 referendum was not accepted by the Conservative Party, and in 2005 they ran on a manifesto promise of a second referendum, so the double standards here are absolutely breathtaking.

Let me move on to the point that he makes. How do you resolve the issue? If Britain leaves with no deal, are we really saying that the people have no right to express an opinion on that? Because nobody two years ago—not even him—said, 'A "no deal" Brexit is likely'. No-one said it. Everybody said—Nigel Farage said it, the Brexiteers said it—'Oh, it'll be the easiest negotiation in the world, we'll have a free trade agreement like that, the German car manufacturers will drive it, et cetera, et cetera.' You've heard me say it in this Chamber. But, surely, if there's no deal, people have a right to express a view as to what they think about that. They may say, 'Well, let's leave with no deal.' They may say that. They may say, 'Well, let's—

They voted to leave.

Well, I'm not taking any advice from UKIP. Their current policy is a second referendum on devolution anyway without actually realising the irony in their comments. If people find themselves in a situation where a 'no deal' Brexit is all that is on the table, when nobody mentioned a 'no deal' Brexit two years ago, is it actually honest to say to people, 'Tough luck. Two years ago, you had your say on this. All right, this option wasn't discussed or wasn't on the table, but it's too bad because you've already expressed a view'? I don't think that's democracy. People surely should have the opportunity, whether—my preference—through a general election that would then throw up a decisive result, then that would mean that there would be no need for a referendum at that point, or, secondly, if the election was inconclusive, what's so bad about asking the people about this who took the decision in the first place?

Because you ignore what they tell you. 

I'm still at a loss to understand exactly why the First Minister thinks that a conclusive general election—presumably with the Labour victory that he would want—would help his Government further 'Securing Wales' Future', which I am still assuming is the policy of the Welsh Government. Because if there is a majority Labour Government in any snap general election, we'll be leaving the single market and leaving the customs union, and the people would have absolutely no right to have a say on that question properly. So, even looking again at the question of time frames, presuming there is a general election in January, without extending article 50 that's two months—three months max—the Labour Government would have to negotiate our departure from the single market and customs union, which is, of course, precisely the policy of the current United Kingdom Government. So, rather than going through all of that nonsense, why can't the First Minister just say, 'Let the people decide, and let them decide now'?

Well, the difficulty is this, isn't it: there's no deal on the table as yet. So, you'd be asking people to take a decision without knowing what the full consequences will be. I think they need to be fully informed—they weren't two years ago—of what the consequences would be. It would take just as long to organise a referendum.

To my mind, a general election would give an opportunity for the parties to set out their stalls in detail as to what they think Brexit should look like, and on that basis people can vote accordingly. If there is an inconclusive result, then, he's right: how else do you resolve the issue other than through asking the very same people who took the decision two years ago whether, in the full knowledge of what they know now, they want to go ahead?

The problem has always been this: two years ago, people were asked to vote for an idea—there was no plan: an idea—and people would interpret it in different ways. There are some in this Chamber who will interpret the vote in 2016 as a vote for any kind of Brexit, no deal or not. Others, like me, will interpret it as a vote for Brexit, but not on whatever terms get thrown at the UK. When we had our referendums for devolution, people could, if they wished, look at the document that would tell them exactly what would happen if they voted 'yes'. That didn't happen in 2016. So, surely, if we're in that situation where there's no deal, or a bad deal, people have the right to be able to express a view as to what they want to do. Just trust the people.