I first met Jeremy Corbyn in the 'no' lobby; we were one of 13 MPs voting against the establishment of the European External Action Service, and I met him on numerous occasions thereafter on various EU matters where we were of the same view. I hope he still is of the same view, because I think, once this withdrawal agreement is voted down in the Commons, I don't accept that the alternative is no deal. Yes, there will be WTO trade rules, but I wouldn't put an overemphasis on that; I accept they don't fully allow for frictionless trade, and there are some problems and issues with them, but a hard border in Northern Ireland is not one of them. But what there will be is a series of sectoral deals to mitigate particular issues that arise and to smooth our exit from the European Union in the interests of both sides. They may not be called withdrawal agreements, it's not clear that they can pass the vote in the House of Commons, but there will be agreements of some sort, and we will, I trust, then leave the European Union.

Now, I think in some areas of this withdrawal agreement—and I don't want to take a different approach from the relatively consensual debate we've had at least on these benches so far, and I have huge respect for the position articulated by David Melding, who spoke with great passion in favour of the European Union, but understands that, when you have a referendum, and when you promise to implement the result, when the vast majority of MPs, including the vast majority of Labour MPs, voted to trigger article 50, and neither that motion nor the referendum itself said, 'subject to there being a particular deal that we later like with the European Union', then what you have to do is you have to implement that result. It's all very well to say, 'You have another election', but, before you have another election, the people who are elected at that election go to the legislature and legislate for a term; the result of the election is thus respected. The result of this referendum was to leave, and we need to leave. I would prefer it was with a deal; I would prefer it was with a better deal than this one. But, in some areas, this deal delivers on things that at least some 'leave' voters wanted: broadly, on freedom of movement—it does provide for the end of freedom of movement—and also, after the transition period, which, unfortunately, might be extended, it would then provide for at least less money, and probably not great sums of money, continuing to go to the European Union. So, in that sense, there are some positives, but, for me, the negatives are overriding, and they are, first and foremost, that we can't get out of it. At least with the European Union, there is article 50. With this, we cannot get out of it without the agreement of some other body, and I do not think that, as a sovereign United Kingdom, we should be putting ourselves in that position.

And also in terms of trade. Now, there was some debate in the referendum as to whether we should leave the single market, and I think the 'leave' campaigners were clear that we should, and particularly Michael Gove. There was not the same debate about the customs union, because it was taken as a given we were leaving the customs union—the customs union was the founding project of the European Union. The arguments for the customs union are much weaker than the arguments around the single market. We pay much more in customs duty than other EU countries because we import more from outside, and, broadly, those customs duties hurt the poor, both in other countries who can't sell to us as well, and here because the poor, proportionately, spend more of their income on the goods to which the tariffs are applied. If we stay in a customs union, as proposed in this withdrawal agreement, and certainly within the backstop, then the European Union will decide our trade policy without our having any say in it. They will be able to use our UK market and go to third countries and say, 'Hey, give us a reduction in your tariffs for EU exporters, and, if you do, as a bonus, we'll give you access to the UK market on better terms.' Yet, in return, those markets will not have to open up their countries to UK exporters. It is that unfairness that just makes no sense. It is a hugely unattractive thing to do, and I'm just perplexed that Labour Members in the House of Commons, or potentially here, do not seem to understand that.

The single market versus the customs union—people here may take a different view, but, in Westminster, perhaps they just don't like the sound of it being a market and they like the sound of it being a union. But, actually, if you think about it, from first principles, the idea of being in a customs union, where you have absolutely no power there and can be used by others in their trade negotiations, is a deeply unattractive one. It is what we're offered in the backstop and we can't get out of it without someone else's agreement. So, for those reasons, I oppose this withdrawal agreement, but I welcome the tone of the debate we have had on the Conservative benches, and because, for reasons I don't entirely understand, the Welsh Government say it's terribly important to send a message that we're against the withdrawal agreement, while not actually offering us an opportunity in the motion to do that, I look forward to opposing their motion, as well as the amendments.