It's rather strange, Llywydd, that I find myself standing up to almost defend the Prime Minister against attacks made on her rather than on me because it was all about what was happening in Westminster. I have to say that what is noticeable about Brexit is that those who smashed the window have run away and left those who didn't want the window smashed to put it back together again while claiming that they are doing it in the wrong way. I did notice that those people who said it will be the easiest trade deal ever and all that nonsense that we heard that hasn't come about—. And what is the narrative now? That the EU is being unreasonable. Well, the EU is looking after its own interests. And this idea that the EU needs us more than we need them, the EU doesn't see it that way at all, or not as the EU-27. Their view is, 'Well, we'd like to give the UK a good deal, but, actually, there's a whole world out there that we can talk to and we can trade with—big blocks that we can sell our goods to.'

Now, he asks fairly what's been done in the last two years. Well, when you have David Davis and Boris Johnson in place for so long, the question is answered. I'm not sure what David Davis did, if I'm honest with you, in terms of moving this forward. Boris Johnson seemed to think that any problem could be resolved by a quip of some kind. His greatest contribution to the job of Foreign Secretary was to jeopardise the release of a British national in Iran because of something that he said. So, she did not choose her personnel wisely when it came to her Brexit Secretary and her Foreign Secretary. And here we go again: 'This is treachery by an establishment.' No evidence at all to back that up, despite the fact that there are many leavers, of course. David Davis was a leaver, Dominic Raab was a leaver, and yet, despite the fact that he was the one who put this agreement before the Cabinet and then decided to leave, and David Davis, a leaver—he was the Brexit Secretary—are they part of the establishment that was so treacherous? And here we have the start of a narrative: 'All this would be fine if it wasn't for traitors in our own ranks.' The stab in the back theory. Now, where have we heard that one before? The British people have been stabbed in the back by people who sold them down the river. That's familiar ground from another country nearly 100 years ago. Perhaps we see now why Tommy Robinson will be so welcome in UKIP because of the historical parallels that seem to be playing out. 

And when it comes to free trade agreements, I have to say to the Member: a free trade agreement with America is no substitute for having a good agreement with Europe. It's further away and it's a smaller market. India is further away. Australia is both a small market and even further away. None of these markets will make up for the European market. And I have to say to him: these countries, India particularly, will say, 'If you want a free trade agreement with us, we want our people to be able to move and to arrive in Britain without a visa.' They're not going to accept visa restrictions at all. They will want something close to freedom of movement for their own people, and then what's he going to say at that point? He's opposed to freedom of movement for European nationals. Does that mean he supports it for Australian nationals, for Indian nationals, for American nationals? That's something that UKIP have never addressed. 

And then, of course, finally, he came up with a comment that belies, really, the sort of raging free-marketism of many in UKIP. He said that we would lose out on the opportunity for cheaper cars, cheaper food, cheaper clothing and cheaper footwear. What of the British workers that work in those sectors? What does it mean for our farmers if we allow in inferior—inferior—food products to undercut what they produce? What does it mean for our car workers if we allow in cars that are produced at a much lower cost that don't meet our current environmental standards? His view seems to be: let's cut the standards right down and let them in, undercut our own workers. Clothing, footwear—all these industries that are important to Britain. I do not believe that those who voted 'leave' voted 'leave' to jeopardise their own jobs. Many, many people said to me that one of the reasons why they were voting 'leave' was because they felt that their jobs were insecure and their lives were insecure. They will never vote for anything that looks like a laissez-faire, low-regulation economy. That's exactly what—I was going to say the leader of UKIP, but it's a rotating chair—the Member has said. That is not, I believe, what the British people voted for, it's not the vision that they voted for. I believe what they want is a sensible Brexit that protects their interests and the interests of Wales.