Llywydd, there are five themes that I would like to just draw out of the debate this afternoon before turning to what individual parties have said. Can I begin by picking up a point that Paul Davies made very early on in the debate and to which Rhun ap Iorwerth and Joyce Watson both returned? It is a very serious point, which is about the divisiveness of the debate and the intergenerational tensions that it has thrown up in our country and the obligation that any one of us in public life ought to feel about healing those divides and using language and an approach to this debate that has a chance of healing, rather than dividing, the divisive fissures that this whole business has opened up.

A second theme that I think you can hear in everything that has been said this afternoon is that of complexity—how quickly the promises that we were told in the beginning of how easy it all would be have evaporated, as, every time you explore the process of separating from a relationship in which we have a 40-year stake, the complexity of doing that. And that's been a theme in many contributions this afternoon.

Certainly, in a third theme, a whole series of Members, and, not unexpectedly, members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee—in particular Jane Hutt and Dai Rees, its Chair—have pointed to the seriousness of what is at stake in this whole debate and the deal that we're asked to pass a judgment on: the flow of medicines into the United Kingdom, the impact on supply chains, on prospects of economic growth, the impact on equalities—whether that be for workers' rights, as Dawn Bowden said, or the impact on women, as Jane Hutt pointed to—on ports, on energy, on environment, on our standing, our security and our respect in the world. All of those matters are at stake in this debate.

And there's a wider context to it beyond our direct membership and the deal, which Siân Gwenllian pointed to—our membership of INTERREG, our membership of Creative Europe, those other networks from which we have gained so much and contributed to so much as a nation during our time in the European Union—and, beyond the European Union, the point that David Rees and David Melding both made about the future of the United Kingdom itself beyond the European Union as well. These are profoundly important matters, and this wide-ranging debate has touched on them all. But, in the end, Llywydd, what we are voting on is an expression of the views of this National Assembly in advance of a meaningful debate in the House of Commons on the deal that Mrs May has struck, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.

Neil Hamilton said that, for UKIP, there would be a rejection of the deal for very different reasons from all the others that have been aired across the Chamber. For the Conservatives, I heard Paul Davies do his best, I thought, to set out the case for Mrs May's deal. I began to wonder why he hadn't put down an amendment so that his party could vote for that position, but, of course, I soon realised why not: because, with Paul having said that this was a compromise around which we can all unite, I heard David Melding say that he would fight for a generation to overturn it and Mark Reckless point to the inevitability of its defeat. So, I suppose we know why there was no Conservative amendment to the motion.

The two points on which I thought Paul Davies's argument were weakest was when he tried to say to us that this was a binary choice between Mrs May's deal or no deal at all. He couldn't even answer Adam Price's simple question of whether leaving the European Union would leave Wales better off. And I seriously say that the argument we've heard in the Chamber that to ask for a second consideration of this most serious issue is somehow to undermine democracy—it is the weakest argument of all. the weakest argument of all. I'm with Dai Lloyd on this. I've spent a lifetime voting for causes on which I've been defeated. Does that mean that I say, 'Well, in that case, democracy has made its decision and I can never speak up for that cause again'? Well, of course I don't, because, if you are really a democrat, then you understand that arguments are always there to be had and to be had again.