I, too, welcome the First Minister's statement, and like the leader of Plaid Cymru, I think it is, by and large, a fair summary of where we are now. And I certainly agree entirely with the First Minister in his criticisms of Theresa May and her conduct of the Brexit negotiations. I wonder if he'd agree with me that the catastrophic outcome of two years of utter incompetence in these negotiations has produced the greatest national humiliation for Britain, certainly political humiliation, since Suez.

Theresa May does have a certain genius. Last year, she contrived to make Jeremy Corbyn look electable and to come within an ace of winning a general election that she need not have held. This year, she has contrived to produce a deal for leaving the EU that is even worse than staying in. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister's actually been intent upon sabotaging the whole Brexit process. I mean, it's absolutely irrational to me to do no preparation whatsoever for leaving the EU, during the last two years, on WTO terms, then to run negotiations so close to the wire, as we are now, which has limited everybody's options, including her own, and then to agree this transition deal—so-called transition deal—which seems to be worse than staying in, unless there's a subtext here that we're actually in Hotel California, where you can book out but never actually leave.

And I note that Monsieur Barnier this week has been talking about extending the transition deal, even to beyond the projected date for the next general election into 2022–23. And I certainly agree with the question that he poses in the statement: what on earth has she been doing for the last two years? I don't think she's been so much managing the internal turmoil inside the Conservative Party as actually causing it in the first place. This is a deal that has been designed by a remain Prime Minister, endorsed by a Cabinet of remainers, to ensure that Britain never actually leaves the EU. We won't even leave in name only because this deal commits us to regulatory alignment with the EU for an indefinite period to come. And after we leave the EU, of course, we won't even have a voice, let alone a vote, on the laws that are going to be made and which we'll be obliged to implement.

It can't be explained, in my view, by incompetence alone. This is treachery by an establishment determined to frustrate democracy, and we've seen it before: in Denmark, in France, in Ireland, in Holland, where referenda have been held, the people voted 'no', but they've been told, 'You've got to keep on voting until you vote the right way.' [Interruption.] So, we remain, as a result of this so-called deal, inside the EU, subject to its regulations and directives, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in which we won't even have our own judge, without representation in the Commission, without representation in the Council of Ministers.

And furthermore, whereas under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, we have the right to leave, under this deal the EU has a veto upon whether this deal is concluded or not, enforceable at the orders of the European Court of Justice. That's the opposite of taking back control, which was the Prime Minister's stated objective. At least at the moment we have 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers. After 29 March next year, we will have 0 per cent of the votes. And we are paying £39 billion of taxpayers' money for the privilege of giving up what little control we currently have. And, in the process, we are prevented from taking advantage of the greatest boon of leaving the EU, which is to enter into free trade deals with the United States, Australia, India, China, et cetera, until an indefinite period, and possibly permanently.

The EU has got everything that it wanted out of the Prime Minister, and more. We have a £90 billion a year trade deficit with them. They export £340 billion-worth of goods and services to us. Why on earth would the European Commission want to allow us to enter into free trade agreements with other countries to undercut their prices on cars, food, clothing, footwear, et cetera? Of course they don't want us to reduce taxes on fuel because that would make our industries more competitive with them. And the most shocking thing—I'll conclude on this—about this agreement is that, as regards Northern Ireland, in future, laws will be made for Northern Ireland in which Dublin has a voice and a vote, but Belfast and the UK do not. That is the very reverse of partition.

The leader of the Conservatives during his questions to the First Minister—[Interruption.]—I'll come to you in a second—talked about the need for engagement. Well, the Prime Minister has gone behind the backs of two Brexit Secretaries to make far-reaching concessions to Brussels, and twice tried to balance the Cabinet to agree with her plans in ruthlessly plotted manipulations at Chequers and No. 10. There was no engagement with the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, let alone with the Welsh Government. And a 558-page, densely worded document was produced for people to comment upon at five minutes' notice. The Conservative and Unionist Party is certainly no longer a unionist party. This is not a deal but a capitulation. I wonder if the First Minister would agree with that description.