The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 2 in the name of Gareth Bennett, and amendment 3 in the name of Julie James. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

We now move to the Plaid Cymru debate on the people's vote, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion—Adam.

Motion NDM6816 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that a people’s vote should be held through a UK-wide referendum on the final terms of the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Plaid Cymru put forward this motion today on a people's vote because it's our considered and heartfelt belief that it's our solemn duty to do everything in our power to avoid a self-inflicted calamity to our country. Democracy is indeed a powerful thing; it can form and topple Governments, it can create new democracies and nation states, but at its essence, of course, it provides regular opportunities for the people themselves to change their minds.

On 23 June 2016, people from all four nations of the UK took part in one of the single biggest exercises of democracy the UK has ever seen. Promises were made by both sides of the referendum campaign, 'leave' and 'remain', and, quite often, by individuals and politicians who were not in a position to deliver them. Let's look at some of the promises that were made, some of the facts, and the options in terms of what we should do now. 'Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week' was the most widely recognised promise of all, of course: rowed back on the day after the vote. Of course, the reality is that Brexit is actually costing the UK economy £500 million a week now, according to the latest projections from the Centre for European Reform. That's £26 billion a year, which, as it happens, is the difference between continuing and ending austerity—ironic, since austerity was one of the key driving factors behind the vote.

Members may have heard my warning this morning that we're heading towards an economic iceberg and need to change course. There are some who are advocating an alternative strategy, which is best described as, 'Let the iceberg move'. They dismiss all the warnings and insist that we're about to enter calm waters and that the EU will eventually buckle to our demands.

We were promised shiny new trade deals with EU and non-EU countries, the former being the 'easiest trade deal ever negotiated', it was claimed. Well, now, while they're right that leaving the single market and customs union would allow the UK to begin the work of negotiating new trade deals with other countries, there are deep and troubling questions regarding the content and timescale of such deals. The average time for negotiating a free trade agreement, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, is 18 months, with a further three and a half years to get to the implementation stage. These figures are the average for bilateral trade deals between two partners. If Brexit happens, the UK will need to agree a trade deal with the EU and separate ones with its trading partners, of which there are over 50. No country on the planet has been in a position where it's had to negotiate over 50 free trade agreements at the same time under these circumstances. The current Government has spent two years negotiating a deal with the EU and has failed to make any process. The idea that negotiating 50 such deals at the same time will be a walk in the park is complete fantasy.

There has already been a massive opportunity cost since the referendum—Government time all taken up by one issue and thousands upon thousands of civil servants working solely on plans driven solely, it seems, by dogma and ideology, with one result: the undermining of the Welsh and UK economy.

Even though the macro outlook is alarming, things get even worse when you drill down and look at some of the detail about what leaving the EU customs union and single market means in practice. This would mean leaving, for example, Euratom, which is the legal contract by which the UK is able to import radioactive substances widely used in the field of medicine for treatment of cancer. Leaving the EU means leaving Euratom unless the UK applies for associate membership, which it doesn't intend to do. Are we really saying that our radioactive independence—whatever that means—is more important than the welfare of cancer patients?

Of great concern as well is what the proposed FTAs would entail and their wider implications. Eurosceptic Tories recently released a report calling for a trade deal between the UK and the US to allow American companies to compete for health contracts in the NHS: a far cry from boosting the health budget using the Brexit dividend that was promised.

Among the other backwards measures advocated by these right-wing zealots is holding a bonfire of consumer and environmental regulations: hormone-treated beef, chlorine-washed chicken—the well-being of people and animals sacrificed on the altar of an imperial nightmare. It's a sad—

Would the Member give way?

Yes, certainly.

I don't think I'm a right-wing zealot, but it's for others to describe me. The problem is that I remember, in the referendum campaign, making many of these points. I was an enthusiastic remainer. I've not changed my judgement on the strategic advantages to the UK of remaining in the EU, but a decision was made. What assessment have you made of the damage you will cause to our democratic culture if you seek to overturn that referendum result?

Well, look, I think the point at the heart of everything that I have said is that these sunlit uplands, this land flowing with milk and honey that was promised, has been shown to be a complete and utter lie. The people were lied to and, actually, many of those who voted on the basis of this false prospectus are angry about a political class that has acted as charlatans, and, in those circumstances, actually, in order to save our democracy, we need to revisit this question by providing the people with the full facts that they were deprived of last time.

It's a sad reflection of the current climate that we have now members of the ruling party also openly saying that risking peace in the north of Ireland is a price worth paying to realise their distorted aims. They've talked a lot about freedom as their justification, but what about the freedom to live in peace, as was guaranteed under the Good Friday agreement? They claim to want freedom from European tyranny, but what tyranny are they referring to? The tyranny of grams and kilometres? The tyranny of peace on a continent that has spent 100 years of its history at war? The tyranny of the European Court of Justice, which guarantees our human rights? The tyranny of being free to live and work in friendly neighbouring countries?

Plaid Cymru does not propose holding a referendum to revisit a constitutional decision lightly, but it's abundantly clear by now that we're heading, head first, towards a national emergency based on a false dream that was sold to voters. Many Members on the benches here campaigned with me to secure devolution for Wales in 1997. We had a proper implementation plan and a White Paper; we explained to voters in great detail what we intended to do. People knew what they were voting for, and, when we secured a 'yes' vote, we kept our word and delivered on what we had promised. The same was the case in Scotland in 2014; the Government had produced a White Paper setting out exactly what independence meant—it was 670 pages long and was absolutely comprehensive. They were in a position to make promises and deliver on them. That was not the case for the 2016 referendum. The 'leave' campaign was in no position to make or honour the promises it made to voters.

Now, Members on the Tory and UKIP benches may disagree with me now. I say, 'Fine. Let's put it to a vote—a people's vote—and let the people decide whether they did, in fact, vote for a "no deal", a disaster deal, a self-destructive deal, or were they, in fact, sold a lie by shady charlatans and they now want to rectify the decision in the light of the new evidence they have.'

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

1. Believes that the outcome of the UK-wide referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union must be respected.

2. Notes that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union.

3. Calls upon the Welsh Government to support the UK Government in protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and I move the amendment tabled in the name of Darren Millar. The next six months will shape the way Wales and the United Kingdom engage with the rest of the world for generations to come, as we leave the European Union. For trade, investment, security, immigration, it is vital that we secure the best possible deal for Wales. 

Today's debate should be about exploring how we can secure the best possible deal for the people of Wales. Instead, today's motion has focused on shifting the debate from this discussion on to overturning the outcome of the referendum and the clear statement sent by the people of Wales.

As representatives of the Welsh electorate, we have a duty to deliver on the result given to us by the people of Wales in June 2016. The UK Government is working to deliver the best possible deal for Britain and Wales post Brexit, and I hope that the Welsh Government is constructively working with its Westminster counterparts to get that best possible deal. Let me remind Members that almost every local authority voted to leave the European Union. That is something that we cannot ignore.

There are, of course, significant opportunities for Wales post Brexit, and the Welsh Government should now get on with promoting Wales as a place to do business. As I understand it, Welsh exports are worth £14.6 billion each year, with 61 per cent of Welsh exports and just under half of our imports going to and from the EU. And so it's absolutely essential that the Welsh Government works with businesses and public services to plan and prepare for Brexit.

Now, I appreciate that progress has been made in some areas. For example, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has launched the Business Wales Brexit portal—a website specifically designed to help businesses as they prepare for the changes and challenges arising from the decision to leave the European Union. It's that sort of activity that is crucial as we move ever closer to leaving the EU. Similarly, for Welsh farmers, leaving the EU also presents opportunities to put in place bespoke Welsh policies that can better reflect the changing nature of the industry and help support Welsh farmers for the future. However—

Will you take an intervention?

In a minute. However, instead of exploring those themes and discussing ways in which we can work closer with businesses and industries to prepare for Britain's withdrawal from the EU, this afternoon we're discussing whether or not another vote should be held or not. And I give way to the Member for the Rhondda.

Do you honestly believe that Wales and people in Wales will be better off after Brexit?

The Welsh people, the British people, have made their decision to leave the European Union, and we must now deliver Brexit; we must respect their wishes. And you should respect—[Interruption.] You should—[Interruption.] You should respect their wishes as well, because I would remind the Member that her constituency also voted to leave the European Union.

Now, the UK—[Interruption.] Now, the UK Government has made it abundantly clear that it will not overturn the result of the referendum and that it will continue to move forward in its negotiations as it navigates its way out of the European Union. Clearly—

Mick Antoniw rose—
 

Are you taking the intervention from Mick—

Not at the moment. Not at the moment. I would like to make some more progress, thanks.

He's not taking the intervention.

Clearly, I accept there are still a number of outstanding issues between the UK and the EU in its current negotiations—not least of all around the nature of the border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. However, I'm confident that those matters will be resolved during the course of the negotiations, particularly as both the UK Government and the EU have made it absolutely clear that they wish to avoid a hard border between Ireland and north Ireland.

Naturally, as the UK leaves the European Union, there are several constitutional questions that will arise for each of the devolved administrations. Indeed, the First Minister was quite right when he said, last year, that Brexit provides an opportunity to reinvent and strengthen the United Kingdom, and I agree with him that there are significant opportunities to readdress the relationships between the devolved administrations, and I look forward to addressing those constitutional questions as we move forward.

Llywydd, we on this side of the Chamber have been very clear: we will work with colleagues across this Chamber and beyond to see Wales prosper once we leave the European Union. Welsh communities, Welsh industries and the Welsh people all rely on its Governments at all levels to do everything possible to make this happen. Anything else, including implementing a second vote, will only serve as a distraction at a time when we need to focus all our efforts into seeing Wales flourish for the future. We will not support calls to frustrate the will of the people by supporting a second vote on Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. We have a finite amount of time before we leave the EU; let's make the most of it by working together in the interests of our constituents, and I therefore urge Members to support our amendment.

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

Amendment 2—Gareth Bennett

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1.  Recognises that it is the decided will of the people that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, which was expressed in a referendum held less than 27 months ago.

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

3. 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 yn fawr, Llywydd. I move our amendment to this motion. I was disappointed by the speech of the new leader of Plaid Cymru, who I welcome to his position, for its pessimism, its faintheartedness, its gloom, its utter lack of confidence in the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom to make a success of the great opportunities that becoming once again a sovereign, independent nation—which I should have thought would have been at the very heart of Plaid Cymru—gives us the opportunity to do. He made a speech like a kind of inverted Mr Micawber, just waiting for something to turn down. This is from people, of course, who never wanted a people's vote in the first place on whether we should join what was then the European Economic Community, which became the European Community, and which has evolved further into the European Union.

We've been promised referenda by Governments both of the Conservatives and of the Labour Party on the individual treaties that have extended the reach of European Governments in the periods since 1973, and those promises have been comprehensively broken. David Cameron didn't want the referendum on whether we should leave the EU now. He was forced into it because UKIP was breathing down the necks of Tory MPs, as Mark Reckless will be able to remind us, because he lived through it. And now, of course, the parties that don't like the result of that referendum want to reverse it. Although I must say that Adam Price's speech was directed not to his motion, which doesn't actually call for a second referendum on EU membership, but merely a referendum on the terms of our exit. So, if Plaid Cymru had the courage of its convictions, it should have put down a motion saying, 'We should have a referendum in the hope that we can reverse the decision of the last one.' I think David Melding had a most important contribution in his—

Will you take an intervention?

Can I finish this point? It was a most important contribution in his intervention, where he asked what damage this would do to the fabric of democracy of this country if this decision were now to be reversed. I give way to Mick Antoniw.

Thank you for giving way. Is it your view, then, that if Theresa May's deal is a bad deal, Parliament should vote it down? 

Oh, certainly it is, yes. I never had any great confidence that the EU would negotiate a deal with us in the first place because—[Interruption.] The EU is a political project first and foremost, and we are talking here in terms of an economic relationship with the EU in the years to come. I would much rather leave, as Theresa May used to say, with no deal than a bad deal. I believe that the Chequers proposals don't actually mean leaving the EU at all. It's BRINO—Brexit in name only—because they would preserve us, in effect, as members of the customs union, and how that would play out beyond there is anyone's guess. We would become rule-takers from the EU. We would pledge to accept for an indefinite time the rules that they make, which would entangle our own businesses, and we wouldn't be able to even influence the terms of them, let alone disentangle them afterwards.

But, let's get back to the main point of Adam Price's speech here, which was that British people are far too stupid to have been able to make a decision on the basis of enlightenment. It's only people like us who can do that. Extravagant claims were made on both sides, as they are in every single election campaign, whether it's a general election or the Welsh Assembly election. Should we have an election every year on that basis, or every week on that basis? Clearly, this is an absurd proposition.

I'm not against having a referendum in the future on whether we should go back into the EU if that's what a substantial number of British people want, and they can get a majority of Members of Parliament to support that. If there were a second referendum now, I'm personally confident of the outcome. I think it would actually confirm the decision of the first referendum. But, that would introduce a further period of uncertainty, which is, of course, the continuing mantra of remainers now. So, this isn't going to solve our problems.

In the referendum campaign itself, the Government—the UK Government—at our expense, spent £9 million producing this document. The idea that the British people had no idea of what the consequences of leaving the EU might be on the worst possible scenario—. Just read this document because, on one page, it says that the economic shock:

'would put pressure on the value of the pound, which would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards. Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.'

Then, on the following page, it says:

'Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that…No other country has managed to secure significant access—' [Interruption.]

Yes, and in spite of all that, the people still voted to leave the EU. The people knew what they were doing. All that the remainers—the unrepentant, unrelenting remainers—want is to try to reverse the decisions of the British people that were made two years ago.

I just want to make one more point as I am out of time already. Let's keep the economic case in perspective—[Interruption.] I just want to make one point. The World Trade Organisation's weighted average of EU tariffs is just 2.7 per cent, which translates to £3.9 billion in tariff receipts. The EU's average weighted tariffs for UK imports into the EU is only between 4 per cent and 7 per cent—an aggregate of £5.5 billion to £10 billion. These are trivial figures in the context of the economies that we are talking about. Whatever the outcome of the current negotiations, even if there is no deal, then we can easily cope with disruptions of that kind.   

I call on the First Minister to move formally amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Amendment 3—Julie James

Delete all after 'believes that' and replace with:

the option of a people’s vote must be kept on the table and in particular if the Prime Minister is unable to secure agreement on the final terms of the UK’s exit from the European Union and there is no subsequent general election, then the people must decide on the way forward.

Amendment 3 moved.

Formally, Presiding Officer.

Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. As one of the original signatories to the people's vote, there is no doubt in my mind of the dangers that people in Wales face from crashing out of the EU without a deal or with an extreme Tory Brexit. 

It's our concern for our struggling economy, for jobs, for wages that drives Plaid Cymru on this question, and that's what drove us to co-author the White Paper with the Government, which said that Wales's interests would be best served by us remaining in the single market. This option has not only been rejected by the Prime Minister, but has also been rejected by the leader of the official opposition. So, in truth, the party in Westminster fighting for what both of our parties have agreed is what's in Wales's best interests is Plaid Cymru. Labour in Westminster are not advocating for the principles outlined in that White Paper, and that is a matter that can't be easily resolved with a general election. We had one of those just last year and it solved nothing. A Labour UK Government wouldn't take us closer to that agreed position either. We all know that. Different coloured ties at the negotiations at this late stage will solve nothing.

So what options do we have to get out of this mess? What options do we have to avoid this economic nightmare that could make austerity look like a walk in the park? A people's vote on the final deal will give people a further opportunity to give a view when more detailed information has become available. As someone who has described herself as a Welsh European, I want us to keep our links with the European Union, but we do have to keep our eyes wide open here as well. There are no easy options or perfect outcomes. If Brexit goes ahead, especially if it goes ahead without a deal, it will be a disaster for our economy. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

But there are concerns for our democracy, too. If people perceive that a pro-remain establishment is simply overturning the original vote because of some sort of paternalistic, 'They don't know what they're doing' attitude, then there are dangers facing our democracy. How will people have faith in democratic processes if they can be simply overturned? So we need to be very careful of not being open to accusations that politicians, experts, academics are only interested in overturning the original result.

I support a vote on the final deal, to ratify or otherwise, but simply re-running the original question or overturning the result will not resolve the issue. Many people who voted 'leave' did so because they had nothing to lose. People in my area, right across the former coalfield, especially the older generation, they can remember a time when our communities were not relying on handouts that often seem to be spent on projects with no tangible benefits to their lives. They understand that our communities were built by people doing things for themselves. There were no widespread public services when the villages of the Rhondda were being thrown up around the pits. Those were created by collective action, pooling pennies earned in the mining industry, and since that industry was deliberately demolished in the 1980s, our people have had no choice other than to be dependent on benefits, on handouts from Westminster or Brussels or the lottery or Communities First-type initiatives. After a decade of austerity and even longer of not being listened to, many people living in these communities decided to send a big and powerful message to the establishment. They used what little power they had to stick their two fingers up to dependence, to poverty, to hand-wringing, to paternalism and to the Tories. I can't tell you how many people I know who wanted to give David Cameron and George Osborne a bloody nose, and simply could not understand how I was on the same side as those two conmen.

Whatever happens, the concerns of working people, of those on zero-hours contracts, dependent on benefits and food banks, as well as those older people who yearn for a different time, must be addressed. If we have a people's vote on the final deal, then we need to learn the lessons of the 2016 referendum and address the underlying causes that led to the Brexit vote: poverty, disillusionment with our political system, and the despair felt by many of our communities. A people's vote needs to be an exercise in further democracy, not seen as an attempt to overturn a democratic decision, and as a Welsh European, I will continue to campaign for Wales's best interests on that basis.

Llywydd, in politics, there is often an easy path and a hard path. If the easy path was always the right way to go, then the job we do here would be simple. In fact, we'd hardly be needed at all. But the reality is that, more often than not, the hard path is also the right way. In an age where a lie can be retweeted 30,000 times before truth has booted up her laptop, that is more true than ever. So, there are some hard things we need to be aware of in this Chamber.

Firstly, Wales voted to leave the European Union. I accept that and I respect that. Secondly, the offer that was made to people at the time of the 2016 referendum is never going to be delivered on. Instead of leaving being 'cost free' and 'the easiest thing ever', it is going to cost the UK a minimum of a £50 billion divorce bill that we will still be paying in 2064. And that is before we even consider the cost now in higher prices and low growth, even before we've left—a cost that the Centre for European Reform estimates at £500 million a week.

The third fact we have to accept is that there is no majority in the House of Commons for any sort of Brexit—not for Theresa May's Brexit, not for Jacob Rees-Mogg's Brexit, and not for any sort of blindfold Brexit either. But the weakness of the Prime Minister and the aggressiveness of the Breximists on the ERG—the political cousins of the UKIP Members in this Chamber—means that unless we find a way out of this mess, we will have the worst kind of Brexit at all: a 'no deal' Brexit that would destroy our manufacturing in Wales and devastate our health service; a 'no deal' Brexit that will decimate our automotive, aerospace and agricultural sectors; a 'no deal' Brexit that will destroy jobs at companies like ArvinMeritor in Cwmbran who depend on just-in-time manufacturing. It's their jobs, their mortgages, their kids' futures at stake.

So, the fourth fact is that we need a way out of this mess, and that means that parties will have to co-operate. My party's amendment says the way out is a general election. I will vote for it, but I will do so knowing that the fifth fact is that there is little to no chance of it happening. And that leads me to my sixth and final fact, that a people's vote is the one way we have to unite to get us out. It's time we dropped the party political bombast and showed leadership, even if it's hard and recognise that fact. 

A people's vote will not be a repeat of the 2016 referendum, but a vote on the actual deal. The advocates of Brexit got the right in 2016 to negotiate for us to leave, but we should have the right to tell them that what they're offering is not good enough compared to what we have today. I'm not afraid of that debate, but it seems the advocates of Brexit are.

This is fun today, isn't it? [Interruption.]

Carry on with your speech.

My turn to speak, sorry. I stand today with deep concerns about this motion.

In 2016 we had a national debate, we had a democratic vote and the people voted to leave the European Union. It is our job as elected representatives to implement the will of the people. We must always remember that Government is the servant of the people not the master.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I won't—this is short.

This debate, it seems to me, is about much more than the prospect of leaving the European Union. We are, in effect, asking the people of Wales to think again. That's wrong. [Interruption.] Yes, and they voted leave.

Asking Wales to think again, this could start a dangerous precedent, and you lot know it. Let’s look back at the 1997 referendum on devolution. Then, the people of Wales gave a much less clear mandate for devolution than they did when they voted to leave the EU in 2016. But that was the right answer, clearly.

Then, in 2015, a majority Conservative Government was elected with a clear manifesto pledge to provide the people with an in/out referendum. Two questions: in or out. In 2016, the people duly voted in that referendum to leave the EU, and finally—and you can take the smiles off your faces, Labour Government—in 2017, both major political parties committed to leaving the European Union in both of their manifestos. So, there have been several people's votes on leaving the EU, whether you lot like it or not. You committed to it.

Today’s debate is certainly not about the people, it’s about politicians saying, 'We know best', ignoring the instructions given to us by the people. [Interruption.] You've had your instructions: it was 'leave'. Where does this end? [Interruption.] You know what, I can stand here all day and wait for my third paper if you want me to, I don't care. Yes? I'm disappointed to be standing here today. The new leader of Plaid Cymru—although, Adam, I really do like you—quite rightly, in my view—[Interruption.] The new leader in Plaid—[Interruption.]

Okay, okay. Carry on.

Thank you, Llywydd. [Interruption.] I wouldn't. The new leader of Plaid Cymru, quite rightly, in my view, spoke after his election about the significant number of challenges Wales faces, and yet he’s decided that his first valuable Assembly time debate will be to insult the people of Wales because they don’t share his view on the EU. This time could be much better spent discussing health, education and the additional powers set to arrive in this place after Brexit. Those things could easily start to improve people's lives here after Brexit.

I will close now by simply asking Members to respect the vote that people have already had. I fear for our democracy if we do not respect those votes. Diolch yn fawr.

Llywydd, I have to admit that I have form on resisting the results of referendums when I feel that the people have made a mistake. I joined Plaid Cymru in 1979 after the devolution referendum was lost. It took us 20 years to overturn the result of that referendum. I don't think there are many people—. [Interruption.] It did take 20 years, I'll give David Rowlands that. It took 20 years, but we can't wait 20 years to look again at the result of this referendum. Wales is about to be dragged over a cliff into a 'no deal' Brexit abyss and the risks faced by the rural communities that I represent in mid and west Wales are well known. Those of us who know that this would be a disaster have an absolute duty to resist that and to put the reality to the people of Wales of what we will actually face, if and when we leave, and what the deal will actually be. 

The original referendum was deeply flawed. People were invited to vote for more control. What we have seen instead is a power grab by a Tory Government dragging powers away from Wales back to Westminster while the Labour Government here stands by wringing their hands. And people were invited to vote for billions of extra pounds for the NHS, among other things. There were all sorts of things we were going to spend this money on—the farmers, we were going to spend it on the health service. Goodness me, it was the magic money tree, really, wasn't it? Instead, as has already been pointed out by Adam Price and Lynne Neagle and others, this Brexit is already costing us millions of pounds a week and we will have billions of pounds in the divorce Bill, and the potential impact on the Welsh economy, long term, is dire. 

Each Welsh voter who supported Brexit will have had their own reasons, and I have a lot of sympathy with what Leanne Wood said about what some of those reasons would be—a resistance to an establishment that people felt was ignoring them. I remember campaigning with Lee Waters in Llanelli and two young men saying to me, 'I can't get into this at all. This is posh English blokes shouting at each other. This doesn't feel as if it's anything to do with me.' That may very well be true, but I am convinced that none of those voters who voted for Brexit voted for drug shortages, unemployment, a hard border in Northern Ireland, visa requirements to visit our nearest neighbours and threats to environmental protection and our human rights. And all of those are real risks of a hard 'no deal' Brexit. 

I want to refer today, Llywydd, to those people who in that referendum could not vote—71,500 young people, approximately, have reached the voting age in Wales since we voted to leave. That is not far short of the national majority in Wales for Brexit. Now, I do not mean to imply for a moment that all young people would have voted to remain, but we do know that young people were much less likely to support Brexit, and it's obvious that the impact of Wales leaving the European Union, especially if we do so without a deal, will have a much more profound effect on the lives of those young people than it will have on the lives of those of us who have already benefited from decades of EU membership, and may now be coming to the end, some of us, of our working lives.

There is evidence of much anger amongst young people about Brexit. I saw this when I was leading a national youth work charity. These young people have a right to be angry. Our generation is taking an ill-informed gamble with their futures, and we owe them the right to have a voice in determining that future, and to take part in a people's vote on the deal that is actually being offered.

I want to refer very briefly to the Government amendment, which invites us to look at the general election as a way of resolving this. Well, as Lynne Neagle has already said, I'm at a loss to see how that would work. There's no need to rehearse the division and chaos that is the Conservative Party's position on Brexit, but I'm afraid that Labour in Westminster is not much better. I follow politics pretty closely, and I have no idea what a Labour Westminster Government would do about Brexit. Would they renegotiate? Would they put on a referendum without the option to remain? Would they place a referendum with a potential option to remain if the deal was rejected? I suspect I don't know because they don't either, and I suspect that that depends on whether you believe Jeremy Corbyn, Keir Starmer or any of the other people who may be speaking. A general election cannot, sadly—and I wish this were not the case—get us out of this mess, as Lynne Neagle has said, and I suspect many other Members on the Labour benches know this. 

We need a people's vote once the deal is known, and every single one of us in this Chamber and beyond who believe that the future for Wales is as a member of the European family need to be campaigning now for that people's vote, so that people can vote on what's really on offer and not on the pie in the sky that they were fed in 2016.   

I absolutely acknowledge that people voted to leave the European Union in 2016. [Interruption.] I'm not ignoring them at all, but I don't think they voted to lose their jobs, and that is one of the consequences of crashing out of the European Union. I think that it was a very, very complicated issue, being put—. [Interruption.] No. It was a very complicated issue. Trying to put it to a referendum was—. You only have to remember how difficult it was on the doorstep to have a conversation that did not need to go on for half an hour, because it's such a complicated issue. The original disaster occurred when David Cameron decided to put this issue to a referendum as an alternative to having to put up with the split in the Conservative Party. But we are where we are, so we have to get on with the situation that we have.

There have been some benefits to the Brexit vote, and one of them is that it's lowered the value of the pound that has helped to secure our steel industry, so that is something we should all be grateful for. But that doesn't mean to say that crashing out of the European Union isn't something that nearly everybody in this Chamber would be appalled by, including, I hope, Paul Davies. So, I think that of course we need to secure the very best deal that we possibly can, and that's why we should support our Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the excellent work he's doing in the Joint Ministerial Committee to try and navigate some sort of rational behaviour by the UK Government in the way it's going to affect the devolution settlement. But I really think that we are deluding ourselves if we think that, as Members of this Chamber, we have any influence over what the UK Government is getting up to. They have far too big a problem themselves.

I feel some sympathy for Mrs May, who's had to spend two years trying to think of a way of squaring the circle in her own party, which means that, unfortunately, she hasn't had enough time to listen to what the EU-27 members have been saying really carefully. So, I do not understand—I cannot see how the UK parliamentary Conservative Party will unite behind whatever agreement Mrs May manages to achieve by way of agreement that doesn't contradict the commitments laid down in the Good Friday peace agreement. So, the only way she can avoid crashing out of the EU, which I'm sure she doesn't want to do, would be to rely on the parliamentary Labour Party and its six conditions for support. Now, I think Labour's demand for a general election is for the birds, because the Conservative Party is never going to vote for a general election before 2022, and therefore this people's vote, plebiscite, alternative referendum is actually the only way out of absolute political deadlock, which we have never seen in our lifetime, even though it may have occurred perhaps in the 1920s, 1930s.

So, we have to prepare for the possibility of some sort of referendum in order to have some resolution to the problem that is about to occur at the end of March next year—[Interruption.] It is not without risk. There is the possibility of civil unrest because passions are so high on this issue. So, those of us who are concerned about this need to do all we can between now and then to reach out to all those people who voted differently to the way that we wanted them to to ensure that—[Interruption.]—no—to ensure that we are able to have a civilised discourse on this matter on the issues that face us. I find it really difficult to understand how Welsh farmers voted to forgo 80 per cent of their income, which they got from the common agricultural policy, but it is a fact they did, so we all are to blame for not communicating clearly enough the consequences of the way we voted. People thought that this was just something we'd be able to reverse next time, just like with general elections, but we cannot—. This is a really, really serious issue. We cannot underestimate the possibility of conflict if we cannot resolve it by another means, and it seems to me that, in the absence of a general election, which I don't think will happen, some sort of plebiscite is the only way of resolving it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Well, I find myself disagreeing with most of my Labour colleagues and Plaid Cymru colleagues and sadly find myself almost agreeing with the Conservatives and with UKIP, because I think it was a relatively simple matter, and I think most people were completely clear about what they did vote for. Those who voted to leave the European Union clearly voted because they were assured that we would not leave the single market. Daniel Hannan, the Tory MEP, often described as the Brexit of—

Neil Hamilton rose—

Please, please sit—

I gave way to you.

I will take an intervention when I've actually made a few more points, okay? So, don't jump in; hold your horses. 

What he said was:

'Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.'

And Owen Paterson, Tory MP, prominent campaigner for Vote Leave, also said,

'Only a madman would actually leave the market.'

So, people were clear on that. They also said—we had the bit of racism that UKIP and the Tories introduced into this—'Turkey is going to join the EU and millions of people will flock to the UK.' Where are we? All negotiations with Turkey are suspended on human rights grounds and there is absolutely no prospect of that happening. That actually was probably the most disgraceful part of the whole campaign, because it introduced a racist element built on a lie, and it was a disgrace.

The other thing that people have voted for, quite simply, was because they knew that a free trade deal with the EU, as they were assured by Liam Fox, would be the easiest thing in human history. This is what Liam Fox said, that the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be

'one of the easiest in human history'.

And they were also assured, it was very clear, that we would be saving for the NHS £350 million a week. It sounds like a very, very good offer. They also said that we would protect workers' rights, there'd be no problem with workers' rights. Well, we now have a Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, who has described workers' rights as 'obstacles to British business' and UK workers as the 'worst idlers in the world'. Last week, at Tory party conference, he said absolutely nothing about the protection of workers' rights. And we were also assured that Wales would not lose a penny, we'd be better off, in fact—we'd not only not lose a penny, we'd probably have a few more pennies—and yet Theresa May has refused at every stage to give that guarantee. It would be so easy—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention. 

I campaigned hard for us to remain in the EU, and I will join the campaign to get us back in the day after Brexit becomes a reality, because that's when a democratic response is possible. Public opinion has not shifted at all in the time since the vote, and all these arguments have been rehearsed repeatedly. People still stick to the judgment they made in that referendum.

Well, I think you've actually made the point for a people's vote, because the only way of testing that comment—which I disagree with—would be by actually putting it to the people. Because I think what you actually have is that people did know what they were voting for, but what is clearly happening now is that is unravelling and it is completely clear that every promise that enabled people to vote to actually leave the EU is now unravelling, and that is why we get to a situation where there has to be a vote in Parliament, first of all, on Theresa May's deal. And the reason I asked the question earlier is because of this: if Theresa May cannot honour the promises that were made in the deal, then that deal has to be voted down and there has to be then a decision, ultimately, by the people. Now, I think the people's vote is actually a badge, and it is showing—. It is a badge that is reflecting people's attitudes to the fact that they were sold a pup. They were defrauded during the referendum.

The reason why I think it's going to be a general election, and the reason why Keir Starmer's and Jeremy Corbyn's position is right, is because the most likely outcome is going to be a general election, because we cannot, probably, have a people's vote before we actually come out of the EU, because, in order to introduce legislation, the time for that legislation to go through—. If Theresa May were to have to introduce legislation for a referendum now, that would be, effectively, a vote of no confidence and we would have a general election. And I think the position that has been adopted by Keir Starmer, and I think the position adopted by Jeremy Corbyn, is absolutely right. It has given the Tories the right to negotiate. They have failed in those negotiations, that is quite clear, and, ultimately, there is a need to have a new mandate. As Jeremy Corbyn said at the Labour Party conference:

'We will vote against any reduction in rights, standards or protections and oppose a deregulatory race-to-the-bottom.'

So, let me say to the country: Labour will vote against the Chequers plan—as, apparently, I think, half the Tory party conference is going to vote against it anyway—and whatever is left of it, and oppose leaving the EU with no deal. It is inconceivable that we should crash out of Europe with no deal. That would be a national disaster. That is why, if Parliament votes down a Tory deal, or the Government fails to reach any deal at all, we would press for a general election. Failing that, all options are on the table. The likely outcome is a general election. The likely outcome of that general election is that Labour will win, that Labour will either negotiate on the six principles—and, failing that, there will be a referendum for people to actually decide whether they want to stay in the EU or whether they want to leave the EU again.

Can I now call—[Interruption.] Thank you. Can I now call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Many of the arguments that have been rehearsed on the floor this afternoon have been rehearsed before and, indeed, were rehearsed two years ago. It's right to say that there was a referendum two years ago and people voted in a particular way, and I've always been very cautious in giving, or appearing to give, the impression that that referendum should be overturned at the drop of a hat, because that's exactly what the Conservatives did in 1997. That was their argument. They said, 'Well, I'm sorry, there was an Assembly referendum in 1997', and for eight years they kept a policy of calling for a second referendum. It seems to me that the Conservatives only accept the results of referendums that they agree with. So, I don't think that is a point that is well made by the Conservative benches.

I don't think there can be, personally, a referendum on the very same question and the very same circumstances, but that's not the case here. As I've said many times in this Chamber, people were asked two years ago to vote for an idea—not a plan, an idea. When we had our referendums here in 1997 and 2011, people could, if they wanted to, look at a document that would tell them exactly what would happen if they voted 'yes'. That wasn't available to them in 2016. Surely, then, people have the right, having taken a decision, to be able to shape that decision. Otherwise, it is the most arrogant and elitist argument to say to people, 'You've taken a decision; now it's all out of your hands.' That's not democracy.

Now, we've heard many times in this Chamber the claims that have been made. We know that there's no £350 million a week for health—that was nonsense; it's been accepted that way. We know that there are no trade deals—none have been negotiated—we know the ports aren't ready, we know the German car manufacturers haven't stepped in to force a deal, and we know that the EU has not fallen apart as a result of Brexit. Now, I don't want to dwell too much on rehearsing those arguments apart from to say this: the argument that is now put forward by Brexiteers is— where they are challenged on facts, where businesses say, 'This is bad for us; "no deal" is bad for us', the response is, 'You don't have confidence in this country.' People deserve evidence; they don't deserve guff.

Secondly, we can see an emerging theme from the Brexiteers that says this: 'Well, if Brexit doesn't work out, it's the fault of the remainers and not our fault.' A stab-in-the-back theory, actually, I think, is beginning to develop here—you know, 'We threw the brick through the window; you're trying to put it back together, but we disagree with the way you're trying to do it.' That is the Brexiteers' argument, as I see it. I don't accept what is said by Neil Hamilton, that people consciously decided to take a view about the customs union and the single market, and why? Because you can be in both without being in the EU. You can be in the customs union without being in the EU; you can play a full part in the single market without being in the EU—[Interruption.] Of course.

In the course of my speech, I read out from the document that the Government sent to every single household in the country, and it explicitly states in here, in effect, that we would be leaving the single market:

'Losing our full access to the EU's Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs.'

There were arguments on both sides. We've heard a load of them today, rehearsed once again. Ultimately, in the jangling of campaign, people make up their minds how to vote, as they do in a general election. We can't re-run a general election every year—well, we could do, but that would not be sensible—why should we do it on this?

The point is this, isn't it? On the Brexiteers' side, repeated claims were made that everything would be fine, there would be a free trade deal and there wouldn't be a 'no deal'. Well, that was just wrong, wasn't it? We all see that. Nobody said two years ago—no-one in UKIP; Nigel Farrage didn't say it; the Brexiteers on the Conservative side didn't say it; the Brexiteers on my own side didn't say it, in my own party—no-one said, 'Well, if we crash out, there'll be a "no deal" and it doesn't matter.' It was always about a free trade agreement, and Norway was the example that was given. There are people in this Chamber, actually, who said that Norway was the example that the UK should follow. I think there's merit in that, although the model isn't exactly right as far as we are concerned. The reality is that the EU is a political project, but then so is the UK. Every nation state, every sovereign state, is a political project and we have to bear that in mind.

But I want to turn, if I could, my attention to an issue that I first raised in this Chamber years ago—one that is trying to be dismissed, but is, in fact, at the very heart of Brexit and the Brexit negotiations, and that's the situation in Ireland. In 1995, the end of the Troubles was being seen by people there. When the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998, it brought to an end not 25 years of trouble, not 100 years of trouble, but 300 years of on and off war. That's what it brought to an end. People were told, 'You will be able, now, to share an identity; the border will be porous and it won't make a difference anymore, because we're all part of the EU.' That, now, is in grave danger. And yet the response of Brexiteers is to say—Jacob Rees-Mogg has said it; Boris Johnson has said it—that it doesn't matter; that, somehow, it is the tail wagging the dog. Well, in reality, it is absolutely crucial. Because, let me tell Members—and I'll tell Neil Hamilton this—more than 3,000 people died between 1969 and 1994. People on both sides were killed because of their religion. You could not walk the streets in certain parts of the city without putting your life in danger. A helicopter was in the air all day. When you crossed the border, you went through a security point. There were roadblocks all around the city of Belfast. The situation in Northern Ireland was dire: people were killed who were driving taxis because they drove for the wrong firm; people were killed when bombs were placed, as we know, at Enniskillen; people were killed in pubs because they happened to be the wrong religion in the wrong pub. And here we have people saying, 'It doesn't matter; it doesn't matter.' Say that to my wife's family. And you say that to the people of Northern Ireland who went through all that mayhem for many, many years, and say to them, 'It doesn't matter about Northern Ireland'.

Because, remember, the UK is not even 100 years old—not even 100 years old. The UK only came into existence when the Irish Free State was set up under its current borders. I say to Members in this Chamber now: I have seen what conflict looks like in Northern Ireland, and I have seen what peace brings. I saw the prosperity that peace brought. I saw the barriers coming down. I saw people being able to walk the streets without fear of being kidnapped or murdered. We play around with that peace agreement at our peril; it is not something that you play games with, and it is not something that can be dismissed as a result of the Brexit negotiations. Brexit has to take into account that there exists on the island of Ireland a border that's been fought over, where people have died, and a border that in 1998 was an issue that was settled with a peaceful outcome. That is now under threat.

So, yes, there are arguments in this Chamber that have been rehearsed many times before. I'm not seeking to rehearse them and I'm not seeking to say, 'Well, you know, the result was wrong two years ago', because those arguments have already been made, but we do not play with people's lives, and we do not ignore the fact that peace was brought to the island of Ireland because—true—of the efforts of the UK and Irish Governments, but because of the efforts of the EU as well.

With the stakes being so high, I can't see what objection anybody would surely have that, if the political process fails, if Parliament can't agree, if there's an election and there's an inconclusive result, the people are then asked the question, 'What do you now think? You know what the circumstances are, you know what the stakes are—what do you want to do?' And that's democracy.

Thank you. Can I now call on Adam Price to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful to those Members that have taken part in this debate, and I'd like just to respond, first of all, to the First Minister, who spoke very, very powerfully, drawing on his own family experience, of course, in terms of the history of Northern Ireland. You know, actually, the contribution of the EU in terms of peace, right throughout this continent, has been right at the core of its history, of course. I was in Germany on the night the Berlin wall came down, there as a student—as an Erasmus student, as it happens. I thought I was on the wrong border that night, because I was on the Franco-German border; I was in Saarbrücken. Cardiff University sent its students to Saarland, which was a bit of a busman's holiday—a coal and steel region of Germany. But, actually, that was the right border to be on, that night, because I witnessed French and German students at that university hugging each other in tears, and I couldn't help myself thinking, actually, it wasn't so long ago on that border that young men from those two countries would have been fighting each other. And, you know, if there is a people's vote, that's the kind of passion, I think, that we can put at the core of this question. 

I am, like Leanne Wood, a passionate Welsh European. Gwyn Alf Williams actually famously said if the European Community as was didn't exist, then we Welsh would have to invent it. It's actually right at the core of our history, from the very beginning. In terms of the time that we find ourselves in now, I pay tribute to the passionate speeches that we've heard, particularly on the Labour backbenches. But here's another difficult truth: we, of course, between our parties, negotiated the White Paper, which set out a sensible way forward in delivering the Brexit mandate, limiting the damage in terms of people's lives and livelihoods. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the British political establishment has no sense. It's incapable of delivering anything. I mean, the truth of it is, if people talk about the moral mandate of the 'leave' campaign, that these people lied. They broke the law. And then they left the scene of their political crime, leaving the consequences to others. That isn't good enough. And, if you talk about the damage to democracy, think about what will happen next. Think about what will happen next if this disaster of a 'no deal' Brexit is allowed to happen in front of our very eyes. 

We've been witnessing, haven't we, a car crash in slow motion? Well, it's speeding up now, right, and the responsible thing is that we—. The first imperative in a democracy is to be honest with the people, and that is—. We have a mandate in this Parliament, we're a people's Parliament, and we have to be honest with the people of Wales. They were lied to, and they deserve the opportunity—now that they have the truth unveiled, they deserve the opportunity to actually decide what they want to happen next. [Interruption.] I give way.

Thank you. You have been honest, very honest, in saying that you wish to campaign to reverse Brexit. Will you be also honest in admitting that, if we were to announce that there was going to be a second referendum, that would give a green light to EU negotiators to deliver a bad deal or no deal in the expectation that people would then vote to remain?

Well, look, it's not us on this side who have undermined the Prime Minister's negotiations. I mean, look at what even her former Foreign Secretary is saying about the way that she's handled the negotiations. That's one bit where it seems there's wide agreement. It's been shambolic; it's been absolutely pathetic. The problem is, of course, that it's the people who will pay the price for the lack of political leadership there. We are in a position of gridlock, a political gridlock, and we have to find a way forward. There is no easy path forward, and it's under these circumstances that it's right and proper in a democracy that we give the people their choice to revisit this question, because they were lied to; they were never furnished with the full facts upon which they could make a decision.

I would say to Members in the Labour Party that this is an opportunity, yes, I think—this is bigger than party. This is actually about the future of our nation. It will affect us—as Helen Mary has said, particularly the young people, who are demanding a people's vote in greater and ever greater numbers. They will have to live with the consequences of this. The tragedy, of course, is that this collapse of political leadership at the centre of the British state doesn't just affect the Conservative Party; I have to say that it affects the Labour Party as well. We in this Parliament have been able to form agreement in terms of the White Paper, but I'm confused as to what the position is of the Labour Party at the British level. In terms of the six tests that were referred to, well, the policy is to be outside the single market, so how can you meet the test of delivering the exact same benefits? That's kind of Theresa-May-parallel-reality world. We, I think, deserve better than that. I think, actually, Labour Party members and supporters deserve better than that. And I would just appeal to you, even at this late stage—and I'm looking at the business manager: don't join UKIP and the Tories tonight. Vote with us for a people's vote. 

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We will now defer that voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

We are approaching voting time, so unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will go straight to the vote. No, okay, thank you.