Well, thank you, Llywydd, and after that speech, I'm going to change my vote. [Laughter.]

Anyway, can I be clear from the start? This current deal—it fails us, it simply isn't good enough. It's unclear, it risks our safety and security, and it puts our economy at risk. Now, I spent many years as a negotiator, and in that time, I've seen lots of so-called 'final offers', but I always found that when Members say that the final deal's not good enough, you go back and you talk some more, and we end up getting a final deal, don't we? So, that's what you do. Now, I also know that people will be saying, 'Well, time's running out', and 'Where are we going to get this time to go back and speak some more?', because I also don't believe that a 'no deal' is any kind of realistic option, and the clock is ticking. So, where is the time going to come from? Well, in this Chamber, some months ago, I did ask whether it was time to pause the clock. I felt it was necessary then. I feel it even more now. And the legal advice—which I think Siân Gwenllian touched on earlier—that the UK Government now appears to have indicates that there's no impediment to seeking this. So, we should do that, and we should allow more time for those discussions to continue because Brexit is unchartered waters for everyone, including the EU-27, and the issues at stake are just too big to be rushed. So, before we set out to sea, let's at least try and be agreed on the map that's going to guide us to this new destination.

Now, Llywydd, I've always thought that our position in the EU was something to be proud of—our ability to influence and shape the market and the policies of the great continent of Europe. We had standing and we had respect. We are now being consigned to the status of bystander and observer. Now, I've always been—as others have said—proudly European. I'm a remainer. I'm proud to say that I campaigned vigorously for us to stay in the European Union because, as a socialist, for me, being part of the EU met my aspirations of active collectivism, pooling resources, working together, avoiding isolationism, and it's also why I am committed to a United Kingdom, because I believe that we are always stronger together.

But having heard Neil Hamilton's contribution earlier and the wringing of his hands about where we are and the poor deal that we have in front of us being worse than actually staying in, I can't help but reflect on what brought us here, and I'm going to repeat some of the things that Joyce Watson has said. What brought us here were the political divisions over Europe that have been the Achilles heel of the Conservative Party for more than 40 years. That internal division led David Cameron to putting the interests of the Tory party above the greater interests of this nation. It forced him to promise a referendum that we didn't need, to appease the hardline Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It was that Tory self-interest that brought us to where we are now. [Interruption.] No. He has to live with that for the rest of his life, and as Dai Lloyd quite rightly said, David Cameron, as a result of this, will, without doubt, go down in history as the worst Prime Minister of our time: the man who put the political interest of his own party before the future economic, social and political interests of an entire nation. Shame on him, and shame on the Conservative Party for allowing it to happen.

But despite all of my reservations, anger and sadness at what brought us here, I have sought to respect the outcome of this referendum, and even though I recall Nigel Farrage saying that if the vote had been 52 to 48 the other way around it was not over. Well, I'm telling you, comrades: this is not over.  I had hoped beyond hope that the UK would be able to negotiate a deal that helps to avoid the disaster that I currently feel beyond any doubt is coming our way. But this withdrawal agreement is not such a deal. We've heard this before I know, but it's worth repeating—there are companies in my constituency that share my fears. Companies who have trading arrangements deeply embedded with the EU, companies already disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit, companies dependent on tariff-free trade for their future business and retaining jobs in the local economy. They are not encouraged by anything that we have seen, and I genuinely fear that if we get this wrong, this will be the greatest act of self-harm that any nation has ever inflicted on itself. And it's our children who will have to live with the consequences of that, and it's the poorest in our society who will pay the biggest price for it. And as an elected representative, I can't vote for that outcome. As an elected representative, the easiest thing for me to do is to vote for the populist option. The hardest thing to do is to vote for the right option.

Llywydd, for a moment, let me also reflect on an issue that's also always been very close to my heart, and that's workers' rights—workers' rights that we have established through the European Union over many years; workers' rights, underpinned by European legislation, embodying that fine principle of an injury to one is an injury to all, which has mitigated some of the worst excesses of Tory attacks on workers' rights in this country. And no, Gareth Bennett, it is not EU migrant workers who drive down wages, it's unscrupulous employers, and it's our failure to deal with that that has been a national disgrace. So, I've read with interest the information about labour standards in the withdrawal agreement, and guess what? It's inadequate in that regard too. It does not provide the certainty that is required to avoid what can best be described as a race to the bottom. Clearly, many will base their fears for the future around the loss of access to the single market, and that, without doubt, is a huge consideration in this debate, and one that concerns me greatly, too, for all the reasons I've already mentioned. But I have equal fears about losing our place amongst the social policies of the EU, for, surely, our aim is that economic stability and social progress are linked together. And I'm just going to quote from one trade union legal firm that might be familiar to one or two people in this Chamber, and they've said:

'It is therefore abundantly clear that the commitments on non-regression of labour standards and compliance with International Labour Organisation and European Social Charter obligations will be ineffective'.

So, there's no reassurance in this agreement around so many aspects of our lives that we rely on for our future prosperity and security, and there's a deafening silence in the political declaration about protecting workers' rights. For me, that does not meet the test set either within the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration. So, our role today is clear: do we, as a National Assembly for Wales, give our agreement to the current withdrawal plan? And my answer is 'no'. Now that we know the extent of this folly, people must have the opportunity to vote again and decide whether the deal on the table is now really what they voted for. And I have to say, Paul, contrary to what you were saying earlier on, all of the indications now are that Wales no longer supports Brexit because now they know what it means—now they know what is actually on the table, they have changed their minds.

I hope that that's going to be done through a general election because I don't just want us to change direction on the EU, I want us to change direction on a whole host of domestic policies. The Government motion contains that vital call for a general election, and that's why it will receive my support and why I can't support the limitations of the Plaid amendment. But, somehow, after the last catastrophic election miscalculation for the Tories, I don't think that they're going to be making that same mistake again, and I don't believe that these particular turkeys will vote for an early Christmas. But the people must have their say, so if the Tories run away from another general election, then there must be a public vote that decides our future. Thank you.