Thank you for those observations and questions. I don't know why you're so surprised that Michel Barnier said that about a hard deal. There are 27 of them. There's one of us. If you ever thought that we would get a better deal leaving the EU—well, you clearly did think we would get a better deal leaving the EU, because that's what you wanted—. I just don't understand why people think that would happen. I've been to agricultural council and environment council and fisheries council, where I feel so isolated, because I watch the EU-27 going about their business and we are completely on our own. Why you would think that they would not get a better deal than us is beyond me.

You say there are massive opportunities. I don't see those massive opportunities. I see massive challenges, and that's what I've spoken about in my statement. I was just trying to say to Llyr that I did think that public procurement was one opportunity, but I am struggling beyond that. I see challenges in my own advice surgery when I have a constituent who comes to me who, if he wants to take his pet on holiday on Friday, so long as he's got a pet passport, he can take his pet on holiday on Friday. That will not happen after 29 March. It will probably take about four months. You will have to take your pet to the vet probably three or four times to have blood tests. It's all going to be so much more difficult than people are used to, and it's about making sure that people are aware of what those challenges are going to be.

We had—well, we have, at the moment, for another two months at least, frictionless trade with our closest neighbours: 0.5 billion people. Why would you not want that to continue? You talk about regulations and environmental standards. I made it very clear that environmental standards will not fall, but I want to remove as much bureaucracy as I can, because, certainly, when I first came into post, and there was the referendum result, and I spoke to farmers, a lot of them had voted 'leave', and when I asked them why, bureaucracy was one of the things they told me they wanted to get rid of. Yet we know that the impact on our agricultural sector is: if we have a 'no deal', we'll have high tariffs, we'll have increased bureaucracy, we'll have delays at the border, and that will all add to the cost of exporting. So, whilst I too want to reduce bureaucracy, that is really not going to happen if we have a 'no deal' scenario. I hear what you say about you don't think there should be a 'no deal' scenario. This was the default position, and, frankly, it was always there, wasn't it—the danger of that.

In relation to 'Brexit and our land', I've made it very clear that there will be no cliff edge. One of the reasons for going out to New Zealand was to see what happened there, and I have said all along that there will be a multi-year transitional period. There will be no cliff edge. New schemes won't be brought in until they are absolutely ready, and the old schemes will not be removed until those new schemes are in place.