The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on Wales, and I call upon the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m conscious perhaps that 'no deal' Brexit fatigue may now be setting in. But, in concluding this series of statements this afternoon, I want to focus on the overall impact on our economy and the well-being of the people of Wales.

A 'no deal' Brexit will bring profoundly negative consequences for workers, businesses, higher and further education and the Welsh economy. Indeed, we're already seeing the impact of two years of uncertainty feeding through, with Wales experiencing a decline in the number of companies making the final decision to invest here. Many cite Brexit uncertainty as a key reason for this.

The consensus among mainstream, independent researchers and academics is that replacing single market participation with World Trade Organization rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 per cent to 10 per cent smaller than would otherwise have been the case. This doesn’t just mean damage to businesses but also real damage to jobs and pay packets. A 'no deal' Brexit would have a direct impact on living standards, with incomes on average up to £1,500 to £2,000 per person lower than they would otherwise have been. This would be on top of the lower growth since the referendum result, which the Bank of England believes has already reduced household incomes by £800. So, a 'no deal' Brexit means fewer jobs, lower incomes and a greater risk of poverty for people in communities across Wales. 

I know some Members will dismiss this as scaremongering, but for those who believe good times are just around the corner if we move to WTO terms, let me quote the President of the Confederation of British Industry, John Allan, who said last week:

'The notion that we're the only major nation on earth operating just on WTO terms seems to me to be saying we're confident we have a mile race but we'll give everyone else a lap start—and don't worry, we're so good we're going to make it up. Frankly,' he said,

'I think that's cloud cuckoo land.'

Those who argue 'no deal' would be preferable because it would allow the UK to negotiate new free trade agreements are in denial. Even on the UK Government's very optimistic set of assumptions, new free trade agreements would add 0.2 per cent to our GDP, compared to the 8 per cent to 10 per cent loss caused by the reduction in access to European markets. The reasons for these macroeconomic effects are not difficult to explain. The Welsh economy is intimately linked to the EU single market, with some 60 per cent of identifiable Welsh exports going to EU countries. If we leave with no deal, the UK Government will have hard choices to make. WTO rules mean that, without a free trade agreement, we cannot continue to trade tariff free with the EU-27 while we charge tariffs on similar products from other countries. We will have separate choices to make on each and every type of good. Either we impose tariffs on EU products, fuelling inflation, eroding living standards, and, at the least, making life more expensive and difficult for those who use European-made components in their production, or we unilaterally cut tariffs, undermine our bargaining position, and risk UK producers being undercut by countries with lower cost bases and far lower environmental and labour market standards.

In any circumstances, under a 'no deal', we would see new EU tariffs affecting many sectors and the goods they produce for export, undermining competitiveness. And it's misleading to suggest the impact of tariffs will be offset by a further fall in the value of sterling. According to surveys by the Engineering Employers' Federation, only 6 per cent of manufacturers believe weaker sterling would help them, quite apart from the fact that a fall in sterling stokes inflation and further erodes living standards. Those already struggling will be the ones who bear the brunt if their wage packet can't keep up with the cost of living. 

The technical notices issued by the UK Government lay bare the realities of increased bureaucracy and complexity in terms of non-tariff barriers, which economists believe have an even bigger negative effect on businesses—new demands for technical accreditation, customs declarations, export controls, new VAT processes and liabilities. And those who provide services in the EU-27 will also find their market access drastically curtailed. Moreover, they will be faced with different sets of rules and regulations in each of the member states. For many small businesses, this would quite literally make it impossible to export. 

And, for our education sector, loss of access to research funding, collaborations, exchange programmes and international talent will not just damage our universities and colleges, but stifle innovation and narrow our horizons. So, let's be in no doubt that, in terms of our economy, a 'no deal' Brexit would be a disaster, and, as I've already stressed, a smaller economy means fewer, less well-paid jobs, less money coming in to hard-pressed households. It also means a fall in income to the Exchequer. Less profitable and fewer businesses and lower incomes means a smaller tax base. That means hard choices being made: choices to cut public expenditure still further, to increase the tax burden or to increase public borrowing. None are attractive options over the long term. And the risk is that a right-wing Government will respond by trying to reduce costs and boost competitiveness not by investment, but by cutting back on labour market rights and environmental standards, following the Singapore model praised so lavishly by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Singapore—to where I read today the great champion of Brexit, James Dyson, has moved his headquarters, from Wiltshire. For many other proponents of Brexit, it’s perfectly clear that leaving the European Union is the first step, and not the final word, on a path to a Britain of increased job insecurity and fewer protections.

In the course of this afternoon, my colleagues have made it clear that, even faced with the prospect of a catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit, we are doing what we can, limited though it inevitably is, to help mitigate the impact, including by putting in place our new Preparing Wales website as an important information resource for citizens. This is true also in terms of the broader economy, though I'm mindful of what I have been told over recent days by leading Welsh businesspeople— that we should not pretend that anything we can do will compensate for a situation where exporting for small businesses becomes unviable.

We'll continue to take pride in our achievements as a nation and promote Wales as a place to live, work, to invest and do business, stepping up our international profile and underlining that, in Wales at least, we continue to welcome those who have chosen to come from abroad to study, work and make their lives here. We will continue to be guided by the core principles set out in the economic action plan, above all, the commitment to develop a new and dynamic relationship between Government and business that is based on the principle of public investment with a social purpose.

We are using our new business resilience fund—as the economy Minister said earlier—to provide financial help to businesses as they seek to get ready for Brexit, and our business portal to identify what they need to do. We're discussing with the Development Bank of Wales how they might respond quickly and flexibly to the cash-flow problems that might affect businesses in a 'no deal' scenario, including making use of £130 million flexible investment fund, created in response to Brexit in 2017. Should 'no deal' occur, we will also seek to balance calls for immediate and direct support to struggling businesses against investments, such as in our physical and digital infrastructure and skills base, which will bring benefit to businesses across whole regions and the wider economy in Wales.

I want to conclude by re-emphasising the clear message given by this National Assembly last week, and given again by the First Minister, that the UK Government must take 'no deal' Brexit off the table. If 'no deal' becomes a reality, there will be a clear responsibility on the UK Government to release funding to the Welsh Government to enable us to work with and support business and other partners as they seek to respond to the negative impacts that will flow from such a disastrous outcome. And the disproportionate impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on Wales means that a basic Barnett consequential will in no way be adequate for this. We will do everything within our power to hold the UK Government to its responsibility and to prioritise jobs and growth here at home.

I'm grateful for the statement being provided before it was made this afternoon, and can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for extending that courtesy?

I have to say, we've learned nothing new whatsoever today, in spite of all of the additional statements that have been made. The reality is that Wales is part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom—including Wales as a constituent part—voted to leave the European Union. And I would remind the Counsel General and Brexit Minister that, in his own area, there was a margin of over 13 per cent in favour of leaving the European Union.

Now, you've made many references to what has essentially been said in the many statements that have already been made this afternoon, but I will pick on some particular parts of it, because I think it's quite right for me to be able to do so. You made reference to the predictions of many who you called 'mainstream, independent researchers and academics'. No doubt that these are the same mainstream, independent researchers and academics who said that, immediately after the EU referendum back in June 2016, if there was a vote to leave, we would immediately go into a recession. We were told that there would be a rise in unemployment; we were told that there would be a stock market crash—all in the immediate aftermath of that vote. We were told that foreign investment would be down as well. But the reality is that we've got record employment, the economy has still been growing, we've added value on the stock market and, of course, we’ve got record net foreign direct investment—it’s gone up since that Brexit vote. So, I have to say that what we've had all afternoon is nothing more than project fear on steroids from the Welsh Government, without any temperance whatsoever to their position, which is quite astonishing, given the fact that they were wrong in their predictions before on this particular issue.

You’ve made reference to people living in cloud-cuckoo-land, who were referring to free trade agreements, but, of course, we know that under your proposals, which seek to keep us in a customs union, the reality is that we wouldn’t be able to do any trade deals elsewhere around the world. That is the reality, and I wonder whether you could confirm that you accept that that is the reality under the proposals that you have developed and set before this National Assembly in your document. That’s the reality; nobody is—. The EU has made it quite clear that if we are in a customs union, there cannot be any free trade agreements. And yet, this is one of the things that the public were wanting and which many of them voted for when they voted for Brexit.

You’ve made reference to many of the companies, quite rightly, that export and are concerned about the future of export markets in the EU. I understand and appreciate those concerns, and it’s quite right that we should discuss them openly. But, do you accept that the overwhelming majority of Welsh businesses do not export to the EU and will not be affected in the way that you have suggested?

You made reference also to some of the challenges that may arise as a result of a ‘no deal’ Brexit in terms of increased bureaucracy and complexity in terms of non-tariff barriers. I accept that things would have to change, but do you accept that those challenges are not insurmountable? We have those sorts of checks already in respect of goods from other places outside of the European Union, and they don’t seem to cause any of the problems that you have suggested might arise in your statement.

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to when you said it would be impossible for many businesses to export simply because they would have different rules for each of the EU-27 states. I don’t understand that. If there’s a single market, surely there are single rules to that market, and I can’t understand why you are suggesting there would be 27 different sets of rules. So, I’m not sure whether that's a cock-up in the statement that you’ve just read, or the one that was distributed, but I'd be interested to know precisely what you mean by that particular statement.

I noted that you made reference to the education sector, and, understandably, they are concerned about access to research funding and some of the collaborations that they're currently engaged in. Of course, I would like very much to see those collaborations continue, because I’m a person who believes that we should seek to strike a deal. But, do you agree with me that it’s very welcome, therefore, that the UK Government announced just yesterday an additional £0.25 billion—in fact, £279 million of Government investment—in order to develop research capability across the UK, collaborating with international partners to tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges? What are you doing as a Government to engage with the UK Government in order to try and attract some of that research investment here into Wales?

You’ve suggested that the risk to the future of our country is a right-wing Government that will respond by trying to reduce costs and boost competitiveness, yet the reality is that we have a Government, a UK Government, that has given absolutely clear commitments not to erode any of the environmental standards that we currently have, or the employment standards that we have either. So, would you agree with me that the biggest risk is not a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, but it’s actually a hard-left Government led by Jeremy Corbyn, who would once again ruin our public finances and cause many of our allies around the world to recoil at the sort of Government that we might have?

You made reference also to the need for us to ensure that we are welcoming to people from other nations, and that we have a workforce here in Wales that is capable of delivering the services and the needs of businesses across the country. Do you accept then that it's much better to have equal opportunity for people, whether they're from Berlin or Bangalore if they've got the right skills, to be able to come into this country to be able to serve in our public services and that, actually, the potential outcome here is a fairer system of immigration, which the Prime Minister has tried to negotiate through her deal? 

And do you also accept that in setting out the six tests, the Labour Party is actually setting out a number of red lines of its own in relation to a potential future relationship with the EU, whilst at the same time criticising the red lines that the UK Government has set out? 

And finally, can I ask you: what person in their right mind would ever agree to strike a deal with somebody under any circumstances, no matter how bad that deal might be, because that is what you are asking the UK Government to do by saying, 'Take no deal off the table'? That is the reality. Who when they go to buy a house guarantees—[Interruption.] Who when they go to buy a house guarantees that they will buy that house and that they will come to an arrangement in purchasing that house without the ability to be able to walk away if the cost of that house is too high? Nobody does. That's the reality, and that's why the Prime Minister is quite right not to take the threat of no deal off the table. 

Well, I regret the tone of complacency and Pollyanna-ish optimism that the Member brought to his questions. If he thinks that an economy that is 2 per cent smaller than it would have been otherwise is anything other than bad news for the people of Wales, then he's going to find not many people in Wales are going to agree with that perspective, because whilst we talk about things in this Chamber as percentages and statistics, outside this Chamber those are jobs and livelihoods and welfare, and the complacency that he brought to his remarks I found shocking.

He rests—[Interruption.] He rests his entire argument on the view that exports will continue and they'll flourish as they are. We know that Welsh exporters are working very hard. We know that export levels are up. We know, in fact, that export levels to the EU are up faster and from a higher base, which is the tragedy of the model that he's describing here for us today. No-one in this Chamber has any experience of living in a UK that has run an effective independent trade policy, because we haven't for decades.

And Liam Fox, who I know he's a great fan of, not least in his prognosis about the opportunities that we all have to enter into a nirvana of free trade outside the European Union, has already said that he thought we would be able to replicate 40 or so of the EU free trade agreements before we leave the European Union, so there would be no disruption to trade. Well, we know that by the end of last week, since 2016, only one mutual recognition agreement with Australia had been signed. So, on that run rate, he needs to sign four a week for the next period before we leave the European Union. He has said, 'We are ready', he says of the UK Government

'but that a number of countries...are unwilling to put the preparations in'.

If that doesn't sound like a completely impotent international trade Secretary, it is not the model of self-confident, global—. And I don't think he's even claiming they'll all sign—[Interruption.] He's not—

Darren Millar, you've already asked all your questions. I would have thought you'd have wanted to hear the answers. No, that wasn't an invitation to carry on speaking. Counsel General. 

Thank you, Llywydd.

The kind of support for education is the kind of support for the education sector that the Welsh Government has been outlining in its evidenced policy documents over the last two years. It bears no relationship to the kind of support that the UK Government are envisaging in the political declaration or anything else that they have done, and I know that the education Minister is participating fully in those discussions with the UK Government, and pressing them at every opportunity to show the support and clarity required by the sector here in Wales, which he will know is itself feeling the trauma of this in the period ahead.

He talks about taking 'no deal' off the table. I don't know how much commercial negotiation experience the Member has—I'm sure he has a great a deal of it. I probably spent the last 20 years of my time before coming here negotiating agreements day in, day out, and the one thing that I have learned is that an opponent in a negotiation will give zero credibility to somebody claiming to have leverage that it is perfectly apparent that they don't have. And what Theresa May has demonstrated here is her lack of understanding of how to undertake proper negotiations, which has got us into the parlous state that the UK Government has got us in today.

Can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for his very comprehensive statement, obviously, basically around the Welsh economy and the well-being of Wales? Just a couple of questions come from that. Can I reassure him about his voice, to start off with? Unless he starts singing loudly, he's okay, so I wouldn't suggest singing loudly in response to any of these questions.

But anyway, an awful lot of people are telling me European funding is obviously now up in the air. We have a shared prosperity fund and, obviously, the leave side guaranteed all European funding would still come to Wales, despite leaving Europe. Can we be updated on any discussions you've had as regards what's happening with the shared prosperity fund and European funding for Wales?

Obviously, on these benches or in these chairs, in Plaid, we worry about losing powers. The Counsel General might have heard me before about any proposed power grab. But I'm also worried about the complexity and the lack of time now with the 'no deal' Brexit scenario with 29 March looming, that the complexity and the need to do things with Brexit legislation are possibly being used to potentially roll back our devolution powers. It's timely to salute the work of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's clerks, legislative advisers and researchers highlighting these issues, and as the watchdog of constitutional matters here. I heard what Lesley Griffiths said earlier about how hard-working the legal advice is on the Government's side, but it is also on the Assembly's side here as a legislature, because there is that tension between powers, not just powers potentially being lost between Welsh Government and Westminster, but, obviously, from this legislature to the Welsh Government as well.

And, obviously, despite winning a referendum in 2011 to get more powers for this Senedd, we have seen here the Wales Act 2017 seeing us losing powers, again, as outlined by CLAC and others, and with EU withdrawal, we have seen subsequently the loss of the continuity Bill, we have a non-statutory inter-governmental agreement, we have common frameworks and shared governance, yes, but how shared is that governance at the end of the day is the moot point. I know the First Minister implied earlier that he has similar concerns about the operation of common frameworks, especially now in the short term.

Now, the Counsel General, with his knowledge and expertise, will know about discussions in CLAC about the reciprocal healthcare arrangements Bill, the UK Agriculture Bill, the UK Fisheries Bill, in the event of a 'no deal'. Certainly, in the short term, all of us just expected simply a transfer of powers—what happens now as regards healthcare arrangements should keep on happening. But what we get when you see something like the reciprocal healthcare arrangements Bill is that broader powers have been slipped in under clause 2. We still have Henry VIII powers, meaning the ability of UK Ministers to legislate in matters already devolved to Wales.

Now, also, I heard what the First Minister said earlier—that we shouldn't worry about this, but, obviously, there's a very real concern that the complexity of Brexit legislation now and the time pressures on it, we're all being exhorted to, 'Now, come on, Westminster, we've got the capability, we're under pressure down here, we haven't got the time. Surely we just follow Westminster's lead.' But would the Counsel General share my concern that Brexit, therefore, should not be used to potentially remove powers from this Senedd?

My last point, because I realise the Llywydd is looking at me: does the Counsel General agree that, actually, we are in a mess? Politics and politicians in Westminster have failed. What's on the table now with Theresa May is a bad deal or no deal—those options. What is available now—bad deal or no deal—is worse than remaining in the European Union in the first place. There are no sunlit Brexit uplands. We need another referendum. Does he agree?

I thank the Member for those questions. In relation to the shared prosperity fund, as he will know, the Welsh Government has been clear that Wales should not receive a penny less as a consequence of Brexit and that all decisions currently taken by the Welsh Government in relation to regional funding, as it is, should remain with the Welsh Government.

I most recently made those points to the Secretary of State at the beginning of last week. I did not get a commitment in relation to either of those, and I sought a meaningful involvement in the consultation in relation to that in order for us to be able to make those points again, as he will know. There is a clear consensus in Wales that those principles are fundamental and that they are the best way for ensuring post-Brexit regional investment policy here in Wales.

He makes a series of points in relation to the process of correcting the statute book in order to ensure an orderly Brexit insofar as statute and our law books are concerned. He makes the legitimate point that the risk and the complexity in the process of doing that requires a high degree of vigilance to ensure that powers are not lost. I will say to him: he mentioned the continuity Bill—he will know very well that the continuity Bill was not an example of us giving up powers. The continuity Bill was a means by which we achieved an inter-governmental agreement, which indeed protected the powers that we have here in Wales and, indeed, gave us extra powers as a consequence of the amendment to the EU withdrawal Act, which would not otherwise have been possible. That gives him an example of the ways in which the Welsh Government has stood up for the devolution settlement in the context of Brexit.

On the point of legislation more broadly, he will know that what we have adopted as a position as a Government is that, because of resource issues generally—and I think we should not make light of those—the volume of legislation and secondary legislation that would be required to go through this Chamber would be about the equivalent of 12 months' worth, which would have to come through in about a six-month period, which would be unprecedented in terms of the scale of legislative activity. But we have said that where there are no policy differences and where there are no political sensitivities, we have asked for those corrections to be done at a UK level with our consent. He does identify correctly a number of examples where there have been issues—the reciprocal health arrangement is one of those—and that brings to bear a number of complex issues about the boundary between reserved matters and devolved matters and how, as he mentions the Wales Act 2017, that boundary, sometimes, whilst clear, often intermingles, so issues that are reserved and devolved are mixed in together. Those are difficult judgments for us to reach. And that, then, is an example, in fact, of where we have been pushing back in order to ensure that those powers remain with us here in Wales.

May I close by thanking him for his diagnosis of my hoarseness? [Laughter.]

Can I commend the Government for coming forward with a series of statements today on preparation for a 'no deal' Brexit? Can I commend the Brexit Minister and Counsel General for, to use a cricketing analogy, staying at the crease, showing stoicism, as his powers of voice fade? [Laughter.] He's doing exceptionally well. 

There's an old Malay proverb, which is: prepare the umbrella, before it rains. And this is what we hoped that the UK Government was doing over the last two years, but here we are now looking at preparation for a deluge. So, I do welcome these statements. Of course, Malay is an area of the world in which one of the prominent Brexiteers has made his decision to invest his headquarters—in Singapore—having already decided that his electric car manufacturers would be in Singapore. When some of the Brexiteers who described the potential for Brexit and a 'hard deal' Brexit as, 'We would be the Singapore', whilst sitting just off western Europe, I don't think they meant that all the Brexiteers would flee the other direction to Singapore, but there we go.

I wonder if he would give some reassurance to a group that I've just met along with David Rees and others, which was the steel group—the steel group in Tata, close to my constituency, with thousands of workers, but also their families as well, dependent on investment. Credit to Tata, which is investing—and the transition to the new ownership is progressing along—we have to see the outcome, but they're investing significant money in that plant. But they made the point to me before I left the meeting that 30 per cent of their manufacture of steel goes to the automobile industry; 80 per cent of it goes to the automobile industry in this country. Their exposure to Brexit, even though they're investing, is significant, and they're seeking assurance that, in the nirvana that the Counsel General has referred to, which some have described as, 'It'll be easy; we just step off the cliff and, hey, it's just business as usual'—they don't quite see it the same way, and they're seeking reassurance that, actually, their exposure to quotas and tariffs will be protected if we exit. It's not just on WTO rules, they're actually asking, 'Well, what does Government put up as the new barriers, because we could be flooded with cheap imports? We've been here before with steel in this country.' So, here's the hard reality. So, what reassurance, I would ask the Minister, can we have for them, and that we're looking at it?

And could I ask him whether or not he agrees with me as well that this is not a question, as has been put today, about scare stories and so on, and rerunning project fear, because this is not simply the Labour Party. In fact, today we are having the headlines that we could have one, two or three dozen Conservative Ministers actually resigning in post unless they can vote in Parliament to stop a 'no deal' in its tracks. They get it, deeply. The business Secretary, Greg Clark, is on record as saying that it will cause incalculable damage to the UK. The defence Minister, Tobias Ellwood, is another, looking at the impact on defence. The chief executive of the civil service has said that the UK will never be fully prepared for Brexit, as he plans to move 5,000 staff into an emergency command and control centre. And the business Minister—I mean, these are people who are right at the coalface of engaging with people who'll be affected—Richard Harrington, declared today that a 'no deal' is an absolute disaster for the country and predicts that it could force Jaguar and Mini plants to shut down. I could go on and on. Would he agree with me that, actually, far from project fear and scare stories, what we are trying to do here is actually construct a genuine narrative about the risks and then what we can do, as has been done this afternoon, in actually preparing for them?

I agree with the analysis he's made that it isn't a question of whether we'll be hit by a 'no deal' Brexit; it's a question of how hard. But could I put a couple of final questions? I've looked in detail at the Paratoi Cymru/Preparing Wales website and I'd recommend to all Members that they look at it. I would ask him, as Brexit Minister and Counsel General: what more can we do to disseminate that? Because it is lucid, it's very understandable, it's in the sort of language that businesses in my constituency and constituents themselves can look at. It's signposting to help, assistance and advice. What more can we do, as Assembly Members, and what more can the Government do, to actually disseminate that information?

Finally, thanking both him and the First Minister for appearing in front of the European advisory group and also the programme monitoring committee last week and I look forward to welcoming them back again, would he liaise with other Ministers within the Government who are also involved in Brexit contingency planning and planning for no deal, just to alert them to the fact that some of these committees—the PMC and the EAG—might well also request their availability at some time to see preparedness in different parts of Government for the 'no deal' scenario?

I thank the Member for those questions. He mentioned the steel sector and the automotive sector, but there's also the aerospace industry, advanced engineering—all of these sectors are the sectors that will be hit by tariff and non-tariff barriers. So, the short answer to the Member's question is that, in the context of no deal and in the context of the Prime Minister's deal, there is no reassurance that can be given. That is exactly why we, as a Welsh Government, together with Plaid Cymru, in 'Securing Wales' Future', describe the sort of post-Brexit relationship with the European Union that could best protect outside the European Union the industries that he talks about, where we have a customs union, full participation in the single market and a progressive set of rights for people in Wales in their workplace and environmental and other standards—not just frozen in time as of today but progressively matching those of our other European neighbours. That is the fundamental reason why we have advocated for that sort of relationship over the last two years, and it is surprising to me, I must say, that the UK Government was not able to achieve a similar level of clarity much, much sooner than it has been able to do. And even today, we don't have that clarity.

He talks about Paratoi Cymru and what more we could do. Well, I think we must make every effort to ensure that people know where to find Paratoi Cymru. What we are saying, as he will have seen on that website, is that, in terms of the daily lives of people in Wales, we are not asking them to make different decisions today than they would have been making yesterday. We are working with public services across a range of sectors to ensure their resilience as best we can and, as you heard the economy Minister say earlier, to ensure that businesses engage with the assets that the Welsh Government have made available to ensure that they understand the impact of Brexit in different scenarios on their businesses, so that they can be as ready as is possible in very difficult, uncertain circumstances in order to face the prospect of Brexit.

And the final point he raised was in relation to the European advisory group and the PMC. I very much enjoyed both of those meetings and I thank him for the invitation to attend. It struck me how important it is that we take this opportunity to engage consistently and continuously with our stakeholders and partners throughout Wales. This is a difficult challenge for any part of Government. It's a difficult challenge for any sector and for anybody operating an organisation or a business in Wales, and the best way of seeking to be as prepared as we can be and to do what we can to help mitigate the worst risks of Brexit is exactly the kind of partnership working that he mentioned in his question.

And finally, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Without wishing to test the Counsel General's voice at great length this afternoon—. I was reflecting, listening to the Member for Clwyd West, doing his best impression of the representative here of Westminster, speaking up in what I felt was a wholly irresponsible way about the way in which our communities, communities we all represent on all sides of the Chamber, could be affected by a 'no deal'. I think we've heard, both from the Minister on his feet at the moment but from other Ministers as well through the day, the utter disaster that a 'no deal', crashing-out exit from the European Union would be—a disaster for our communities and our economy but also a disaster for our politics. Counsel General, I'm sure you agree with me that what we've seen over the last few weeks and months has been a disaster for our politics, where we've failed—and I mean collectively as the United Kingdom—to actually demonstrate the leadership that the people of this country, I believe, require at the moment. Listening to the Member for Clwyd West, I was reflecting on a speech I was reading this morning—Nye Bevan's last speech to the House of Commons in November 1959—where he chided the then Conservative Government, saying they were facing failure because they hadn't learnt the lessons of the twentieth century. And listening to the member for Clwyd West this afternoon, I was thinking that there are too many people in the Conservative Party, both here and in Westminster, who haven't learnt the lessons of the twenty-first century. An utterly uncaring attitude for the people who we're here to represent, I think, is a disastrous place for us to be.

Do you agree with me, Counsel General, that we need time and space to have this debate, and we need the knowledge with which we can base and root our debate? I heard the words of the First Minister earlier and yours on other occasions, and I very much commend the work that's been done by the Government here and by individual Ministers. It is my view that we should be looking towards the UK Government now not suspending article 50 but revoking article 50 to allow this country to have the mature debate and the informed debate that we require in order to come to a decision whether we leave the European Union on the terms that we know and understand today—not what we were told three years ago, but the terms that we understand today—or whether we do not wish to do that in the way that we move forward. But I hope that, whatever we do over the coming weeks and months, we will be able to recover a tone in our politics that moves beyond the rancour that's become all too often the political currency over this period, and have a debate that is a much richer debate, a better informed debate, and a debate that is rooted in what we want to see in the future for our communities and our country. And when I listen to people talking about a 'no deal' Brexit and the opportunities that provides, I think about all the billionaires who have moved their assets, their resources, their funds, out of the administration of the United Kingdom just in case, and I reflect, Darren, that there are not many people in Blaenau Gwent with the ability to do that. And as we've seen with austerity, it isn't those people in the restaurants of SW1 who will pay the price for their failed policies; it is the people that we represent in our communities who will pay the price. [Interruption.]

So, Counsel General, is it possible for us to take the next period of time to revoke article 50, for Welsh Government to argue the case to do that, to enable us to have that richer, informed debate about what the options are facing us, and to then take a decision in an informed way? [Interruption.] You can shout as much as you like and I will hear you, but I'm telling you now that shouting will not win the case here. You've shouted enough and you've said enough. What we need now is to have an informed and richer debate that is based upon intelligent argument and analysis and not simply shouting across the Chamber.

May I thank the Member for those observations? He hits the nail on the head, doesn't he, when he says that, too often, the proponents of Brexit are people for whom there is no jeopardy in either outcome, where their resources and their affluence and their self-protection put them in a position where, whatever outcome, is a question of financial modelling and a question of moving your assets from one place to another? And we cannot have the future of the United Kingdom dictated by people with so little at stake in the outcome that they advocate.

I think what he said is very interesting, in the sense that it occurs to me that the debate around Brexit, for two years and more, has often been the high politics on the one hand or the operational, day-to-day impact on the other. The place where we should be focusing, as well as on the discussions that we've had today about the practical impact, is that idea of a vision of what we want Wales to be like if we respect the result of the 2016 referendum—how we go about creating a Wales that continues to be at the heart of Europe while respecting that referendum, and having a form of Brexit that does not do the kind of damage that we've heard, frankly, advocated for in this Chamber today. I think that vision for a post-Brexit relationship is the sort of thing that is set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', and you will know the First Minister's call for the extension of article 50 is in order for that sort of deal to have the best chance of emerging from the discussions in Parliament, and, in the absence of that, for the people to have a final say.

Diolch i'r Gweinidog.