The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Gareth Bennett, and amendment 2 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

We move to item 8, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on a 'no deal' Brexit. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Motion NDM6918 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Rejects an exit from the European Union with no deal under any circumstances.

2. Calls on the First Minister to ask for the emergency reconvening of the UK joint ministerial committee in order to seek agreement on ruling out a no deal exit from the European Union.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to move the motion in our party's name and also pleased to note that the Government is supporting our motion in the debate this afternoon. We agree, therefore, in rejecting, in any circumstances, an exit from the European Union with no deal, and we agree that, as an emergency measure, the Welsh Government should ask for the UK Joint Ministerial Council to be convened to seek agreement on ruling out such a 'no deal' exit from the EU.

This agreement, I think, between us and the Government, and hopefully with other members here as well, is a good sign that there is an emerging understanding in this place that we must face together the problems that are crowding around Wales and the Welsh economy that threaten a perfect storm. There can be no doubt that the many challenges facing in particular, for example, Welsh manufacturing, and not least the redundancies announced at Ford in Bridgend and at Schaeffler in Llanelli, either flow from—or, at the very least, are being exacerbated by—the continuing uncertainty around Brexit. The most immediate thing that we can do to lessen that uncertainty is to take the threat of 'no deal' off the table. That is what my party in the House of Commons is straining—and, indeed, in the House of Lords as well, in the form of Dafydd Wigley—all its efforts in the coming days to achieve, in seeking collaboration across the parties in Parliament, in Westminster. I very much hope that, in approving this motion, the Welsh Government will convey also as a matter of urgency to the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons that he too should seek collaboration with us and other parties in the Commons to put 'no deal' off limits. 

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I think, at the outset of the debate, it is worth reiterating how disastrous a 'no deal' scenario would be. It's of course difficult to predict with absolute certainty the consequences of a scenario that, by definition, is as yet unspecified in all its permutations. But I think it's reasonable to come to a conclusion about the nature of the impacts on the economy, and in the short to medium term they are three fold—a financial crisis, a trade shock and a domestic recession that is likely to be both deep and long.

In terms of the financial markets, the pound is already down some 20 per cent since the referendum, without the kind of UK-wide export boom that some predicted. UK equities, not including foreign-focused firms listed in the UK, are unattractive. Jobs and investment are heading abroad, with about £800 billion of staff operations and customer funds already moved abroad from the financial sector alone, according to a recent report by Ernst & Young. Indeed, on our recent visit to the Republic of Ireland, in a meeting with the Irish development agency, the IDA—of course, they are living proof of what might be coming further down the line. Fifty-five companies have already located, of course, to the Republic of Ireland, even without the horrendous prospect of a 'no deal'.

So, on 30 March, in a crash-out scenario, I think we can expect a rapid and radical worsening of these already existing trends. The pound would tumble probably at least a further 20 per cent to parity with the dollar. There'd be widespread concern about the UK's financial stability, accompanied by a frantic outflow of capital, and a whole range of financial institutions would be likely severely tested in echoes of 2008, but with the added dimension that both the UK and global economies are in a more fragile state than then and have far less capacity to respond positively. The strong likelihood is that the Bank of England would have to raise interest rates sharply to try and maintain confidence.

Now, in terms of the real economy, domestic-facing businesses will probably not be that hard hit on day 1, though one would anticipate a general slowing down in economic activity, given the financial uncertainties, the fall of the pound and the rise in interest rates, which will quickly induce a negative mood in general in terms of confidence in the economy. By contrast, though, the impact on the tradable goods sector is likely to be sudden and explosive. Every cross-border transaction will be affected. Indeed, whole new borders will be created where they previously didn't exist in the commercial sense. Red tape, delays, chaos and confusion will fatally undermine the very basis of much of UK just-in-time manufacturing. One can envisage company shutdowns and cash flow problems kicking in very quickly, given the scale of change and uncertainty. For services, again, the likelihood is almost certainly one of severe disruption and threats to the survival of some companies, and further catalysts for the relocation of others. How many jobs would be lost in the first few months is not accurately calculable, but the likelihood is that these would be substantial and, for the most part, gone for good.      

Now, looking beyond the first few weeks and months, it is true that in the long run those crises usually sort themselves out eventually. However, I think it's likely that, in this case, such is the depth of the impact in certain sectors, particularly the car industry, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, farming, probably finance, I think it would leave a long shadow of economic decline for many, many years to come. And because Wales has a higher concentration in most of these sectors, we would likely suffer disproportionately from a 'no deal' scenario. A major recession in the country will almost certainly be unavoidable. The huge hit to industry, allied to rising prices and rising interest rates, will leave people much poorer, struggling to make ends meet. Domestic-facing companies that will likely avoid the initial chaos would then be hit by probably the most severe depression the country will have known for many, many years. Of course, any of the individual assumptions behind the predictions I've made are contestable, I could be wrong. The question is: is it a risk worth taking? And most of us here, I think, would argue 'no'—a 'no deal' is unacceptable and it is unnecessary.

But it, of course, brings us on to the very pertinent question of how do we avoid it. Now, the Government has already said it supports the extension of article 50, and we welcome that. And praise where praise is due—it's ahead of the Labour Party in Westminster in this regard, who, at this stage, only say that extending article 50 is an option worth considering. What I would say to that, and we've heard the language of options in the Brexit debate in other contexts, haven't we, that famous—? I almost feel as if I was in that compositing-motion-room discussion, because we've heard it referred to in terms of the Labour Party conference so often. Time is running out for options. Actually, what we need now is a clear sense of a strategy and what action are we going to take.

So, I would urge the Government, now that it's adopted this position of asking for an urgent extension of article 50, if it could convey that message to its parliamentary colleagues in Westminster, then they would be doing us all a great favour. And, I think that, obviously, in the motion before Christmas, on 4 December, we voted against Mrs May's deal. I hope that in this motion today, this Parliament will vote against a 'no deal' Brexit. We've been influential—obviously, we led the way in terms of Mrs May's deal. I hope that we lead the way in terms of a 'no deal' as well and the Parliament in Westminster will also follow our lead.

But, you know, saying what we're against is only part of the solution. The next part is saying what we're for, and, ultimately, the only way of absolutely ensuring there is no 'no deal' is for us to find a positive majority in this place, obviously, but also in that other Parliament, in favour of an alternative. But that is a discussion for another day, and by that, of course, I mean next Tuesday.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett—Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 1—Gareth Bennett

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Regrets that the UK Government’s draft withdrawal agreement substantially negates the referendum result, by keeping the UK indefinitely in the customs union and, effectively, in the single market, while depriving us of any formal voice or vote in European Union decisions.

2. Endorses an exit from the European Union with no deal and under World Trade Organisation terms, in order to fulfil the wishes of the people of the UK, and Wales, who voted decisively to leave the European Union.

3. Calls upon the UK Government and the Welsh Government to embrace the restoration of Britain's national sovereignty outside the European Union.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. And I beg to move the amendment in Gareth's name on the agenda. Well, this is just the latest writhing of those who never accepted the result of the referendum two and half years ago. Tentatively at first, but now increasingly explicitly, they're coming forward with plans to first of all frustrate that result and, secondly, to reverse it, to remain in the single market and the customs union. Whatever infrastructure surrounds that effectively means that we do not leave the EU. That was made explicit in the referendum campaign itself, where all parties warned that if the people voted to leave, it would mean coming out of the single market, coming out of the customs union, and Armageddon would ensue just as night follows day. Well it didn't, of course, any more than it did when we had exactly the same predictions over the exchange rate mechanism when Britain was a member of that catastrophic organisation 25 years ago. When we left, of course, it opened up a new dawn that led to a period of unprecedented growth.

And I think that when we've completed this process, as I hope we will, and leave the EU, the freedoms that it will give to us will, in the medium to long term, be quite evident. The kind of Hieronymus Bosch picture that was painted by the leader of Plaid Cymru is absurd when you look at the numbers, that we will go into the most protracted recession that we've known in living memory. Does he not remember a real recession 10 years ago? Or look at Greece or Italy today if you want to see what real deprivation is.

Our exports to the European Union amounted to £274 billion last year—a very significant part of our gross domestic product, to be sure. We imported a lot more from them, of course, because we have a trade deficit with them of £67 billion a year, but nobody is talking about banning trade between the EU and the United Kingdom. The average level of tariffs in the non-agricultural sector—and agriculture is only 2 per cent of the UK's GDP, but in the non-agricultural sector, the average EU tariff is 2.6 per cent. And when you consider, as Adam Price pointed out, that there's been a devaluation of the pound since the referendum of six times that, the imposition of tariffs, if that were to happen—and I'm not in favour of tariffs; I want a free trade deal with the EU—. But if we were to have tariffs introduced on both sides then this would be a small fraction of that percentage of 16 per cent that might be affected.

Many people are trading with the EU in sectors where there would be no tariffs at all; in others, they are trivial. There are, of course, sectors, such as automobiles, where the tariff rate is 10 per cent, but we have a massive deficit in automotive materials. Eighty-six per cent of all the new car registrations in the United Kingdom last year were imported vehicles. We've lost the bulk of our automotive manufacture in the United Kingdom over the years. Germany exports to Britain one in seven of every vehicle that is manufactured in Germany. They're not going to want—they'd be foolish if they did want to see tariffs introduced between us that would inhibit trade. Germany's problems are much greater in relation to what's happening in China than anything that is likely to occur in Britain in the next 18 months. So, they've got other fish to fry, I think.

No, our interests, I think, lie not in ruling out a 'no deal', a so-called 'no deal', if we leave on 29 March without having even begun the negotiations to put something else in its place. We would leave on World Trade Organization terms, as we have with the rest of the world. Sixty per cent of our exports now go to the rest of the world, and we trade quite happily with them on WTO terms, and we cannot enter into free trade negotiations with other important trading partners, like the United States, until we leave the customs union, because the EU is the sole negotiator for every single member of the customs union.

So, there are opportunities, which were wholly neglected in the doom and gloom scenario that was painted by Adam Price in his opening speech in this debate. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a major player in all sorts of industries, and the industries of the future, like artificial intelligence and other technological industries. London is the world's leading financial centre. That isn't going to be undermined by Britain leaving the EU on WTO terms. We have financial infrastructure in this country that is unparalleled anywhere else apart from in the United States. Frankfurt is never going to overtake London as a major financial centre. The EU will still need to use London for most of the major capital-raising activities that are needed in Europe. Of course, there will be some structural change as a result of leaving the EU, and it will be necessary for banks and other financial institutions to set up offices in the EU in order to satisfy their regulatory requirements, but this is not going to cost us anything in the longer term. Certainly, in the short term, there will be transitional costs. Everybody has always accepted that.

But if we go into the future simply believing that, as a country, we're finished, washed up, can't do anything in the world, not only do we misjudge our own people and also actually falsify our own history, but we are closing off the future of not only our younger generation currently in existence, but all future generations, because all we're seeking to do is what I would have thought Plaid Cymru want more than anything else, which is to have the right of self-government for our own country: in this case the United Kingdom, which includes Wales.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 2, tabled in his name—Darren Millar.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Calls upon the Welsh Government to work constructively with the UK Government as it seeks to deliver on the outcome of the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the amendment tabled in my name. Of course, this is a very timely debate, given the events of last night. The meaningful vote on Britain's EU withdrawal agreement was an opportunity, in my view—an opportunity for politicians from all four nations in the UK of all political colours and of no political colours, remainers, leavers to put aside their differences and to put aside ideology on EU membership and try to act in the national interest. And it's a matter of deep regret to me that, unfortunately, given the opportunity that was there that it was not actually taken. Now, we know that the clock is ticking in relation to the date of 29 March, which will be the date when we leave the EU, as is currently the target, in any case, and I think it's important and imperative upon any Government, both here and at Westminster, to make sure that we do everything that we can to leave the EU on 29 March in an orderly way. And that's precisely, of course, what the UK Government was seeking to do. [Interruption.] Of course I will.

Thank you very much to Darren Millar for taking an intervention. I am grateful. Would you accept that 'no deal' would be a scenario that you would also want to avoid, and in that context, if it isn't possible to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit, and there's a need for further discussions at Westminster amongst the senior parliamentarians that Mrs May has referred to, that perhaps we will need to extend that deadline of 29 March? Because the clock is ticking.

Look, of course, I would rather we left the EU with a deal. Of course I would rather that. However, what I don't think you can do is completely rule out the possibility of no deal, because if you do that, what you do is you give all your bargaining chips away to the EU and say to them, 'No matter what you give us, we will take it because we are not going to rule out no deal.' So, it's not a good negotiating strategy. Of course. I want a deal. I want a good deal for the United Kingdom as we leave, and I want a good deal for Wales. And I think that's why we've seen a response from the UK Government, which has accepted the result of the vote last night, but has also reached out to people across the aisle and in all parts of the UK in terms of the devolved administrations and said, 'Right, okay, we accept the outcome of that vote. Help us now to craft something that we can all agree on so that there can be a team UK approach as we leave the EU.'

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. We're 72, 73 days away from the date when we are due—. I know you're getting excited about this, but we are very close to that leaving date. Don't you agree that it's slightly late in the day now to be reaching out to people when we've been crying out in this Assembly for the last two years to have our voice heard, including through the document, 'Securing Wales' Future', and the Government ignored it?

There's nothing like an approaching deadline to get people together and get minds together in order to find a way through. I am not in favour of deferring the article 50 leaving date because I think that what would happen is, we would simply keep on kicking it down the line and never fulfil the outcome of the referendum in June 2016 in which the people of Wales voted to leave the EU.

Now, I have to say, Plaid Cymru have tabled this motion today, and I understand why they've tabled this motion, because they want us to reject a 'no deal' scenario. But what they did yesterday in voting against the Prime Minister's deal that was before the House of Commons has made a 'no deal' situation all the more likely. So, I think it is a bit strange, really, for people who want to rule out no deal to actually have rejected the Prime Minister's deal at such a late date.

And, of course, what we've seen from the Labour Party is a situation where they don't really have a clear idea of what they want when it comes to leaving the EU. They make lots of noises about what they think that the UK Government should do and make demands of the EU in terms of the arrangements that they want to leave on, but, of course, they are unrealistic demands. [Interruption.] I've taken many interventions already. I do apologise to you. I've got just a few seconds left.

So, we will not be supporting your motion today. We think it's important that the Welsh Government, along with the other devolved Governments, should work closely with the UK Government and co-operate in trying to craft a deal that we can all get behind so that the UK can leave in an orderly way, with a transition period, towards a future trading relationship that will deliver the success that people want of Brexit. And it's upon all of our shoulders to make sure that we work together to achieve those aims.

I've only really got a few matters that I wanted to contribute because what's being created is the impression that with no deal, well, it's okay because we'll just fall back on WTO rules and half the world and half our trade is all on WTO rules, et cetera. I mean, quite frankly, that is absolute rubbish. We would be the only country in the world that is trading on solely WTO rules. I think Mauritius, at one stage, was trading on WTO rules; maybe the extent of their economy is what Theresa May has in mind for the UK economy, but it is an absolute nonsense. The moment we fall onto WTO rules, firstly, for non-agricultural produce, there are massive increases in tariffs, but not only that, we don't have the option of just trading with them, because there are quotas for all sorts of products. It would be an absolutely disastrous scenario. What we would actually lose out on is every single free trade deal that we actually have the benefit of at the moment. There are 35 free trade agreements that we benefit from by virtue of our membership of the EU, and there are 48 that are partly in place at the moment, there are 22 that are pending and there are 21 that are under negotiation. We would lose the benefit of every single one of those and we could only replace them by having to negotiate some 100-plus new trade deals with every single country in the world.

Now, it's taken Theresa May over two years to come up with a rubbish deal with the EU that she can't even get through Parliament. The idea that this Government is capable of negotiating 100 new free trade deals, or even 10, even one or two new trade deals, within a matter of years is an absolute nonsense. The immediate—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

A lot of these free trade deals, which are joined with us and the EU, will actually be grandfathered, so a lot of them will just go over and be grandfathered with just us splitting and signing our names on them as well.

Well, see, there you have it again. Absolute mythology. Where on earth do these bizarre ideas come from? Is it the UKIP game of Trivial Pursuit or something? That is absolute rubbish, because we cannot do it; there are all sorts of aspects with the EU trade agreements that actually restrict other countries having the same terms without the agreement of the EU. There are so many restrictions, the idea that, suddenly, they just all fall into place is absolutely bizarre. And that is the problem with UKIP—the mythology that they have been placing. You would think, at the very least, with their hard line nationalist position, at the very least they would say, 'Well, it's going to be tough, it's going to be disastrous, but this is what we want because we are British nationalists and this is our ideology'. Well, at least you could respect that as a position. But on the one hand to actually say, 'This is what we're going to do, but don't worry about it because there are all these magical things that will come; we're going to sprinkle woofle dust, or whatever it is, on every single agreement and suddenly they convert over'. It would be an absolute disaster.

I was talking with GE Aviation in my constituency. One of the problems they face is this: they are at the highest level of engineering, but they have 2,000 or 3,000 components in every engine that get sent all over the world. Now, any delay in that basically makes them, over a period of time, uncompetitive. It doesn't mean that suddenly, overnight, disaster will hit them, but you can be damn sure that, when it comes to the next stages of investments, when futures are being looked at, when there are reorganisations within businesses—. Where will they be? Where would any logical company choose? And that is the dilemma. So, the one thing I'd say is that—. I mean, I can support this motion, because it makes perfect sense. But the one thing I would say to those who are opposing it—

Will you take an intervention?

I will take a quick intervention.

It's the first time you've declared your support for the motion. Do you not accept that if you say that there is no circumstance under which we would leave without a deal, the EU would then have the UK over a barrel, because we would accept anything that we are given because we've ruled out the one thing that we've got at our disposal—to be able to get up and walk away and say, 'Forget it, it's not good enough'?

Isn't that absolutely bizarre? The idea that we're all in agreement that going out with no deal would be disastrous and we're not prepared to say it. The writing is on the wall; it is disastrous. We're not deluding anyone, we're not conning the EU over this. We know that a 'no deal' is a disaster and no-one in their right mind wants to go down the 'no deal' road. And that is the problem, because—

Will you take an intervention?

No, no, I've taken two. That is the real problem, because what is actually happening from the Conservative side is that this is about protecting the interests of the Conservative Party because Theresa May will not face up to the reality of the political situation that she is in. If she had any decency whatsoever, she would do the decent thing, to recognise the historic defeat that she has had and be prepared to go out and trust the people and have a general election.

Leaving without a deal—I don’t know where to start, if truth be told. I will say first of all that I do accept that there are different views in the Brexit debate, but I have to say that the small minority who favour a 'no deal' exit are willing to take an unreasonable risk with our social and economic well-being, and that’s why we as a party today have introduced this quite simple motion, so that the Assembly can again speak clearly and state that we must ensure, come what may, that leaving with no deal has to be avoided.

I thank those, including those on the Government benches, who will be supporting us today. Who will be listening to the Assembly? Well, out experience over the past two and a half years suggests that not many will listen. The whole issue of Brexit has shown to me how heedless the UK Government is of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the First Minister himself has said, and Steffan Lewis and others who have been part of the Brexit discussions and have been involved with them over the past few years, the views of Wales have been ignored far too often and our aspiration to safeguard the future in our nation has also been ignored.

But we must once again raise our voice today, and that’s our intention by tabling this motion. Yes, the people of Wales voted by a small majority on the principle of leaving on the basis of the promises made, but I am confident that people didn’t vote to damage our economy. The pledges made were empty pledges, of course. I hear Mark Reckless barracking from his position there, and he was shouting earlier in the Chamber that, ‘You lost—get over it.’ Well, that’s not the level of debate that’s going to bring people together following this, whatever the outcome of all of this is. You should be ashamed of the childish way in which you are, at this point in the debate—

Will the Member give way? Will the Member give way? He says 'whatever the outcome' of this. The outcome was that Wales voted to leave the European Union. The problem is that people such as himself do not want to implement that result and are doing everything possible to frustrate it. By saying, 'We have to leave whatever; we won't accept "no deal"', you have to accept whatever they give you. But that's what you want, because you want to stay in and frustrate the people of Wales and what they decided.

You were elected by a party in an election two and a half years ago that was campaigning openly against devolution 20 years after the referendum to establish the National Assembly for Wales. I have a daughter who was 16 years old at the time of that referendum. She is now 18, she is an adult, she wants a say on her future. I also want her to have a say on her future. I believe in the currency of democracy. I believe in making democracy relevant today. I believe in asking people what they want today, rather than just listening to what they said two and a half years ago, in case they themselves, including you, Mark Reckless—. You might have changed your mind. I happen to know what you think, but I don't know what people out there think, and I want people to have an opportunity to reflect today, on the basis of evidence that we have in front of us today, whether they think this is the right course of action for us to follow as a country, and I have no doubt at all that following a 'no deal' strategy is one that will not be in Wales's interest, and I cannot in any way endorse or allow this National Assembly to endorse allowing a 'no deal' Brexit to take place. That is why I'm pleased that, in an hour, or less than an hour, from now, this Assembly will vote to say that we will under no circumstances accept 'no deal'. Now, this is about democracy and it's about today's democracy and taking people seriously, not shouting about 'getting over it' from a sedentary position. You should have more experience than that from your parliamentary days. 

My time is cutting short. On so many levels, we know what the impact will be of a 'no deal' Brexit. I remember going across the road, on that secretive day when we had to put our mobile phone in a box so we couldn't take photos of the UK Government's own projections of the effects of Brexit. It was horrifying reading, even those ways of leaving the European Union that were controlled. A 'no deal' scenario, we know, would be hugely damaging. Ford, this week—do we genuinely think that Brexit will give Ford more confidence to protect 1,000 jobs at Bridgend? Do we genuinely think that Brexit had no influence whatsoever over what has happened to Wylfa and the announcement that we're expecting tomorrow on the suspension of that? Do we honestly think that businesses of ours, like the mussel farmers of the Menai straits aren't bothered if 97 per cent of their produce that needs to be delivered alive to the European Union within 24 hours might be threatened because of tariffs, even if that's only temporary? Do we worry about the effects on our agriculture industry? Neil Hamilton talks about tariffs—non-agricultural. What about the agricultural ones? What about agriculture in my constituency? What about the effects of losing young people? What about the effects of losing young people from the agriculture industry in my constituency because they're losing the export market? It's not the speech I wanted to deliver, but that's how strongly I feel about this, and that's why we need to explain—[Interruption.]

The Llywydd may allow an intervention, David, if you want to make one. 

The Llywydd will allow it if it's requested. It's not requested.

You're too late. We have UKIP Members who can't decide whether they want to intervene. We have former UKIP Members arriving after the opening speeches have been made with no respect to the comments that have been made earlier. Well, it doesn't work like that. Let's make a stance today, as I'm confident that we will do, and say 'no deal' will not work for Wales. It will not work for our young people in future.

The Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Llywydd, considering the disorder in the Parliament in London and as we await the result of the motion of no confidence this evening, now is the time to ensure that we work towards one unified aim here at the National Assembly for Wales, to ensure that the key interests of Wales are noted clearly and safeguarded. That’s what our main objective has been since the 2016 referendum.

I’m grateful to Plaid Cymru for outing forward this motion. We fully support it. A ‘no deal’ Brexit is an unacceptable result, this is our stance as a party here and in Westminster. It would be the worst possible outcome and the United Kingdom Prime Minister has wasted two years repeating that, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’, when she should have been developing a practical strategy and trying to engender support for it across parties. No deal is the worst possible outcome, and we’ve been saying that from the very first day. The credible evidence shows that leaving without a deal would lead to greater job losses, the economy shrinking, uncertainty and costs for businesses that export, as Adam Price described, and even domestic companies that rely on European supply chains. It’s incredible that any government in the United Kingdom Parliament would allow such a result that would so clearly be against the interests of the nation. It’s said that there’s no majority in Parliament in favour of a ‘no deal’ Brexit and the Prime Minister said she would listen to Parliament. It’s about time now that she considers carefully the voices being raised against a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

From the point of view of the second part of the motion, the First Minister of Wales has already written to Theresa May asking for the reconvening of the UK Joint Ministerial Committee in plenary as a matter of urgency to discuss the crisis following the vote in the Commons last night. He’s noted clearly that that is on the presumption that the Government will survive the no confidence vote and that she will not have done what she should have done having suffered such a great loss, namely to step aside. In the letter, he asks the meeting to agree to four things, namely: to reject a ‘no deal’ exit as a result of the negotiations; to commit to holding immediately a series of cross-party discussions in Parliament and to work with devolved administrations and institutions to agree on a new way forward—this should include renegotiation based on a firm commitment to participate in the single market and in a customs union or to give the option back to the people of the UK by committing to a general election or a people’s vote; to ask for extension of the article 50 process to facilitate this; and to legislate to abolish the reference to 29 March in the legislation.

From our part, we welcome the commitment, despite it being so late in the day, that the Conservative Government, if it survives, will work in a cross-party way with the House of Commons in order to find a way forward. This of course will have to include the front benches of all the opposition parties and the devolved institutions. The Government must also do what it pledged to do in establishing the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Union negotiations and try and seek consensus on the way forward with us and the Scottish Government.

Llywydd, let us be under no illusion about the seriousness of this situation. I note the one thing the Prime Minister did not say last night, despite the crushing nature of the defeat, was that she would ask for an extension of article 50 to give breathing space for the new approach that she offered. Indeed, Government figures have continued to say that such an extension is not necessary. Meanwhile, as President Tusk has said, the risk of a disorderly Brexit has increased. A disorderly Brexit, as Mick Antoniw reminded us, would bring with it the tariffs and the quotas, despite the wishful thinking of Neil Hamilton. 

As things stand, we will leave the European Union on 29 March. That is what the law currently says. This can only change if the UK Government intervenes decisively. We call on them to ask the European Union to postpone the article 50 deadline and amend our domestic legislation, but for this request to succeed it must be clear that the Government are serious about arriving quickly at an approach that can command widespread support across Parliament and the country as a whole and which is acceptable to the EU-27. We've seen too often the Prime Minister meeting EU leaders with opaque propositions. Now, more than ever, the country needs robust, deliverable proposals, and this requires a fundamental rewrite of the political declaration. Minor adjustments will not do and this will not win agreement in Parliament in light of the scale of last night's defeat.

In the meantime, we must prepare for the reality of 'no deal' as best we can. I said so yesterday in my statement, and the First Minister said so last week in his, and yet again today. It is the only course of action open to a responsible Government that prioritises the interest of our people above all else. That is why we are proposing to reschedule business in this Assembly next Tuesday to focus on 'no deal' preparations. Notwithstanding our many disagreements, we are working constructively with the UK Government and our partners here in Wales and we will continue to do that, but such an outcome would be a travesty. It is the preference of only a tiny minority of ideologues and zealots in Parliament and in the country and would inflict great harm in the ways the Welsh Government and others in this Assembly have described, both today and consistently over the last two and a half years. 

The Welsh Government worked co-operatively with Plaid Cymru at the outset and we jointly produced 'Securing Wales' Future', a sound set of positions defining Wales's interests, which has stood the test of time. We were able to do this whilst respecting that of course we have differences and will continue to do so, but where we are able to agree on the big issues, we have done so for the good of the country. As I said yesterday in my statement, if we were able to produce a collective position, endorsed by this Assembly fully two years ago, why was the UK Government unable to do the same? The Prime Minister must now engage with an open mind with Parliament and the devolved institutions, drop her red lines, and put the national interest first.

Llywydd, I note that the amendment put forward by the Conservative group calls on us to work constructively with the UK Government to deliver the results of the 2016 referendum. Of course, we will continue to work with whatever Government is in power, as we have throughout the last two and a half years, but as I have explained, the onus is really on the Westminster Government to show that its commitment to start serious cross-party talks is genuine, if of course it survives the no confidence vote this evening. 

However, we oppose the amendment because it does not go far enough. The Assembly should make absolutely clear now that 'no deal' should be ruled out. Since the Conservative amendment says nothing at all about what sort of solution to this crisis might be envisaged, I surmise that this is because the divisions here mirror those in the party in Parliament. I know that some Conservative Members opposite really understand how deeply damaging 'no deal' would be. So, I appeal to them to join with us to support this motion, and then the First Minister can take a truly unequivocal message to the Prime Minister if and when she convenes the JMC this motion rightly demands. 

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate. 

May I thank everyone who's contributed to this colourful debate this afternoon? I think that that, of course, reflects the strong feeling and the increasingly polarised feelings in this debate, and that is a shame, but of course that is the challenge we're facing in terms of finding a way out of this huge conundrum. And Adam Price struck a sobering note at the very outset, giving us a picture of the damage that a 'no deal' Brexit would cause, and he admitted himself that perhaps he is wrong. But if he is wrong, then certainly he won't be the only one, because there are commentators and experts and people working in sectors across the economy, across the UK, who fear and predict the same outcome, as does the Government itself. So, is it a risk worth taking? Well, no it's not, and that is why we as a party have brought this motion forward today.

I want to mention the impact on the agricultural industry, because it's a sector that's very close to my heart, and it's one that is of course going to be facing the storms of Brexit more than most other sectors, perhaps. 

And some of the farming concerns have been well rehearsed, of course, but particularly recently in the UK farming round-table, where a number of the major and immediate impacts of a potential 'no deal' Brexit were aired. We know, for example, that there could be huge implications for animal-based products such as meat, eggs and dairy that are being exported currently to the EU. They will only import from approved countries, and it could take months for us, of course, under a 'no deal' scenario to achieve such status. And the impact for our lamb sector in Wales particularly, along with others, doesn't bear thinking about.

Export tariffs have been referred to. What does that really mean? Well, it could be imposed on 60 per cent of UK food, feed and drink that goes to the EU, increasing export tariffs to an average of 27 per cent on chicken, 46 per cent on lamb, 65 per cent on beef. These are the figures that we're talking about, and I can see Mr Hamilton on his feet. Go on.

But we're massive net importers of all these products, apart from lamb. [Interruption.] Apart from lamb, where we import as much as we export—trade is in balance. We're massive net importers, so the vicious tariffs of the EU will apply to their sales to us as much as our sales to them, so they will be the ones who will lose more than us.

Here we go. You're the personification of this delusion of grandeur that the British empire still exists. [Interruption.] No, it's true. And that's what gets me about a lot of this debate. It gets me because some of the rhetoric around Brexit and leaving the EU—it has echoes of that wartime rhetoric, doesn't it? The Dunkirk spirit, digging for victory. This is meant to be peacetime. It's meant to be peacetime, and that kind of rhetoric smacks more of self-harm than self-reliance. [Interruption.] It does—it does, absolutely. And, look, it's not me saying all of this. This evening the Farmers Union of Wales have released a statement, and I quote:

'Given the result of this vote and the dangers of a no-deal scenario, our chairmen and Presidential team felt that the only way we can take back control of the Brexit process is to withdraw Article 50'— this is the FUW—

'and by doing so safeguard the future of the agricultural industry not just in Wales but across the UK'.

And they go on, and you won't like this bit:

'There seems to be growing support for a second referendum across the country, which appears to be reflected in our own sector'.

There we are. Anyway, I've lost track now, haven't I? [Laughter.] But you get the gist, don't you? We know there will be impacts upon the sector, and of course in terms of labour as well—the sudden end of labour mobility from the EU would cause serious problems when it comes it securing labour to harvest and process UK produce as well, of course, and there's another impact in terms of veterinary inspections, which is something that we've rehearsed here previously in this Chamber. In the worst-case scenario, even one of the architects of Brexit, Michael Gove, recently warned of a cull of up to a third of all sheep in the UK, and he had the cheek to lecture others, and I quote, that

'Nobody can be blithe or blasé about the real impacts on food producers in this country of leaving without the deal.'

Well, who was more blithe or blasé than he was two years ago?

As with everything surrounding Brexit, yes, it's being polarised and there will be different views, but what we do know is that there is actually a clear consensus from all directions that a 'no deal' Brexit would be the most harmful Brexit of all. Even the infamous Brexit bus, I reckon, will end its days parked up on a hard shoulder near Dover, trying to get out of the country. [Laughter.] No. The 'no deal' Brexit is the worst of all worlds, and it has to be rejected, and I urge all Members to support Plaid Cymru's motion. 

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.