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

That brings us to the next debate, which is on the prospects for a Brexit deal following the House of Commons vote, and I call the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Motion NNDM6958 Rebecca Evans, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Condemns the UK Government for its failure to engage in meaningful negotiations on the EU withdrawal deal on a cross-party basis and in terms of genuine engagement with the devolved institutions.

2. Reiterates its view that a no deal outcome would be catastrophic for Wales and believes that the UK Government and UK Parliament must do everything in their power to prevent no deal, including requesting an extension of the Article 50 deadline.

3. Believes if, as it now seems, the UK Parliament cannot unite around an alternative proposition which includes participation in the single market and a customs union then the only option which remains is to give the decision back to the people; and believes that work should begin immediately on preparing for a public vote.

4. Believes the UK Parliament should, with immediate effect, step up its engagement with the devolved legislatures on these issues.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. The events last night in the House of Commons, rather than clarifying the issue, have confused things further. Of course, we welcome the fact that the House of Commons has stated clearly that a 'no deal' Brexit is an unacceptable outcome to the Brexit negotiations, a view expressed by this Assembly a fortnight ago, which demonstrates the force of decisions taken within the Assembly informing opinion. The UK Government must listen to this and, as the First Minister of Wales told the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom last week, must state clearly that leaving without a deal is not an option. I don't want to rehearse the debates of last week, but leaving without agreement would be disastrous. It is impossible for any credible Government to continue without stating clearly that that simply isn't an option.

The first step will be for the Government to introduce the necessary subordinate legislation to abolish the reference to 29 March as the leaving date. But these steps aren't enough alone. In one way at least, the Prime Minister was right in insisting that it isn't possible for us alone to remove the sword of Damocles hovering above us—the threat of leaving without a deal on 29 March. Although a majority in the House of Commons, in this Assembly and in the Scottish Parliament, as well as the trade unions and the business community almost in its entirety believe that a 'no deal' Brexit is unacceptable, that fact doesn't mean that it is now impossible. And even if the UK Parliament were to redefine the date of departure, unless each of the 27 other member states of the European Union also agreed to the extension of the deadline of two years set under article 50, this will not happen.

We are deeply concerned at how little time remains, with the deadline of 29 March looming very large on the horizon. There is an assumption with Westminster that we can get very close to the wire and then demand an extension to article 50. This is a dangerous assumption. The longer we wait to ask for an extension, the weaker the negotiating position of the Government. The closer we get to 29 March, the greater the concessions other EU member states will seek from the UK in return for securing their agreement. And the nearer we are to the European elections, the more difficult it will be to reconcile anything more than a short extension with the arrangements to reshape that Parliament to reflect Brexit. So, we need to ask for an extension to article 50 now, something that, last night, the EU indicated it would consider positively. The UK Government need to face the fact that threats and ultimatums will not somehow lead the EU to compliant submission because, while I'm sure that no-one in the EU wants the UK to crash out with no deal, can we blame our European partners if they're exasperated beyond measure by what they have seen in the last few weeks?

And whilst Brexit is surely the dominant issue in British politics, we delude ourselves if we think that Brexit is the main focus in France, in Germany, in Spain, in Portugal. Any other mature democracy, faced by the challenge of the sort posed by Brexit would have seen a Government seeking to build a broad-based consensus about how to move forward in admittedly difficult circumstances. But the Government of the United Kingdom manifestly failed to reach out. Rather, it embarked on a narrow partisan strategy to unite the Conservative Party, not the country, a strategy based on red lines, self-imposed deadlines and on an inability to listen to or respect the legitimate interests of the other party in the negotiation: the EU-27. It's a strategy that has failed to do anything to bridge the deep divisions in our society.

Even so, the historic defeat on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration would have, in any normal times, resulted in the resignation of the Prime Minister and an immediate change in direction. But, following that defeat, we heard encouraging words from the Prime Minister about cross-party discussions, reaching out to devolved administrations and looking to build consensus. It sounded like the Prime Minister had finally learned from the UK Government's mistakes. When the First Minister met the Prime Minister last week, he was clear that the UK Government was at a crossroads. The Prime Minister could continue in the direction in which she has slowly moved since the Lancaster House red lines by now embracing a customs union and participation in the single market across the whole economy, or she could stick to her deal and doggedly try to continue on a journey that had already taken her down a cul-de-sac.

Llywydd, despite those encouraging words following her defeat two weeks ago, it's now quite clear that the Prime Minister is going round in circles in her cul-de-sac, reiterating red-line positions, failing to see the urgent need to extend article 50 and failing to rule out 'no deal'—in short, a continuation on the road to nowhere. Can anything be more ludicrous than the Prime Minister imposing a three-line whip on her own MPs to get them to instruct her to go away and do something she only two weeks ago said was impossible? Rather than looking to unite Parliament on a way ahead consistent with a vision for a post-Brexit relationship with the EU that continues to be endorsed by the National Assembly, the Prime Minister has chosen to double down on the backstop, even though the EU has maintained, and repeated again last night, that the backstop is not open for renegotiation while her red lines remain in place. And, Llywydd, can I say that we support the legitimate concerns being expressed by our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and the European Union on the risks that Brexit poses to the peace and prosperity that the Good Friday Agreement has brought to the island of Ireland? The Prime Minister is about to demand that Ireland and the other EU-27 re-open a deal that she has so recently said was final, done, the only deal on the table. If they refuse to give up the cast-iron guarantee, can we blame them that they would refuse to do that in return for the UK's assertion that they can be trusted to honour their agreements?

So, while with Brexit it's always impossible to be certain of the future, the Prime Minister's next dash to Brussels looks pretty much doomed. And, even if she does return with some token concessions or reassurances, who can be sure that it would assuage that handful of deluded Brexiteers who genuinely believe that crashing out with no deal will just be a minor inconvenience?

Let's be clear: the Prime Minister is going to need to secure lasting support for her approach to Brexit. Trying to build a strategy on side deals with the DUP and the concessions to the European reform group will only weaken the Government's position domestically as they try to pass the necessary legislation in the coming weeks. So, we condemn the UK Government for failing to see the need to establish common ground across political parties on Brexit for the long term. By contrast to the strategy of divide and rule seen in Westminster, right from the start the Welsh Government has looked to build consensus, typified by our White Paper 'Securing Wales' Future', agreed jointly with Plaid Cymru. In that White Paper, we were clear about the trade-offs that would be needed if we were to honour the results of the referendum. We recognised that people had not voted to make themselves poorer and that Wales could not afford the massive economic costs of severing access to the single market and being outside a customs union, and that this meant we would have to accept a future where, like Norway, we had less control over our regulatory environment than we do as a member state.

Our evidence-based approach continues to result in this National Assembly being able to agree majority positions to reject the UK Government's deal and set out the form of Brexit, with participation in the single market and a customs union, that would command our support, agreement on the need to extend the article 50 process, and agreement to rule out the prospect of the UK leaving without a deal. Our ability here to find common ground puts us in a position in this Assembly of strength when we seek to influence the UK Government by being clear what is and what is not acceptable for Wales.

Last night, the House of Commons failed to back any coherent way forward except a worrying attempt to kick the can down the road. It seems increasingly clear that the choice the country may indeed end up being faced with is no deal, a bad deal that cannot command a stable majority in Parliament, or putting the decision back to the people. Another public vote is not an easy path; there are many obstacles on the route, both principled and practical. But while we, as a Welsh Government, will continue to urge Parliament to unite around a withdrawal agreement and a rewritten political declaration that reflects a more credible, more stable, Norway plus-type Brexit—which, by the way, renders the backstop redundant—we also know that time is running out, and so the work must now begin of preparing for a public vote.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton, therefore, 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 current position on EU withdrawal 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. Calls on the Welsh Government to withdraw its position as set out in “Securing Wales’s Future”, jointly authored with Plaid Cymru, as this also ignores the will of the people of the UK, and Wales, who voted decisively to leave the European Union.

3. Endorses an exit from the European Union with no deal, without any extension to Article 50, and under World Trade Organisation terms.

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

5. Calls upon the UK Government and the Welsh Government to accept that we are leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms on 29 March 2019, and to now concentrate all efforts on preparing for this outcome.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I beg to move the amendment in the name of my colleague Gareth Bennett.

We are at the culmination of two and a half wasted years. When the EU withdrawal Bill was enacted, the leaving date of 29 March was on the face of the Bill, and everybody has known that we've been heading to 29 March in the last two years. It's a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the United Kingdom Government that we're in the shambles that we are today. Although, I have to say, it was entirely predictable, given that Theresa May was openly going into a cul-de-sac from which she couldn't emerge, because the EU never wanted a deal in the first place; they wanted a British capitulation.

We know that Monsieur Barnier said in 2016 that he will have done his job if, at the end of the process, the terms are so bad for Britain that the British people will want to stay in the EU. That is the background to the so-called negotiation that has been undertaken in Brussels. We could've read the book Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis, who set out exactly, with, actually, clear precision, all those years ago, the tactics that would face Theresa May and the British negotiators when they got to Brussels, because he said that the EU negotiators are only concerned with one thing: how to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes in a Government or votes in a referendum in a manner that challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed. And that is exactly what has happened. I'll give way.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I understand why you're putting that spin on it, but isn't the effect of what you're saying that there is no deal as good as being a member of the European Union?

No, because Theresa May could have chosen an entirely different course, which is to say, right at the start, that we want the kind of deal with the European Union that Canada, South Korea and a handful of other countries have managed to secure, which preserves a wide measure of free trade between us, but doesn't involve all the governmental entanglements that actually gave rise to the referendum result, which is the background to our debate. I think what is evident from the speech of the Counsel General today is that, of course, he does not and never has accepted the result of the referendum in June 2016, and it's only in recent times that they've become rather more open and transparent about something that they've always wanted to do, which is to reverse that vote. I mean, everybody has paid lip service to the vote of the majority of the British people two years ago, but they've always wanted either to undermine it so fatally that it was meaningless, or they wanted, explicitly, as they now say, to attempt to reverse it with a second referendum, even before the result of the first referendum has been implemented.

Of course, there is a track record for this throughout the whole of Europe; people have had to keep on voting until they produced the result that the EU deep establishment, in Mr Varoufakis's words, wants. Well, this time, it isn't going to happen, and I regret that we are in this unpalatable situation today, but we're never going to be able to deliver on the result of the referendum on the basis of a policy of taking 'no deal' off the table, because that is actually the strongest weapon that Britain ever had in these negotiations. Because, yes, there will undoubtedly be some convulsions if there is a 'no deal' on 29 March; there will be transitional costs—there's no doubt about that—but, as the European Union will also have very significant costs imposed upon it, this merely proves that the deep political establishment in Brussels has absolutely no interest in the welfare of the people of Europe, let alone the people of the United Kingdom. They do not want a deal, because they want a punishment Brexit to deter others who might choose the same course that Britain did two and a half years ago.

But let's not overestimate the costs that are going to be imposed upon Britain if there is no deal. Yes, exports to the European Union are important; export of goods amounted to £164 billion in an economy of £2 trillion, and the average tariff rate in the EU's common external tariff is 2.5 per cent. It will matter much more for some sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, than others, but agriculture is less than 2 per cent of the—[Interruption.] I've no time, I'm sorry, no. I've got four and a half minutes; I haven't any time to give way. I'd love to give way, but I can't.

But we are massive net importers of food. There is a massive market within the United Kingdom for British farmers to exploit if there is no deal. The real losers will be foreign farmers: the bacon producers in Denmark, the wine producers in France, the lettuce producers in Spain—not that that's of great concern to me. So, the future of Britain lies outside the European Union, which is a shrinking part of global trade: 30 per cent of world trade in 1980, down to 15 per cent now, and it will be down to 10 per cent in 20 years' time. Let's leave this sclerotic union. Let's have the courage of our convictions and the belief in ourselves as a nation to make a success in the world with the freedoms that leaving the European Union brings.

I call on Adam Price to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Adam Price.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to facilitate a parliamentary delegation to be sent on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales to meet with parliamentary and government representatives in Westminster to put the case for Wales as set out in this motion.

Amendment 2 moved.

It's difficult not to be a little depressed at this point, particularly after that speech, but it's our responsibility in this place to offer at least some direction and some hope. Brexit started with people offering false and contradictory promises: we could leave the EU and still have unfettered access to its markets without being subject to its laws. Now, Parliament yesterday succumbed to this same strain of Brexit fantasy. The UK Parliament voted last night that (a) a 'no deal' Brexit is not an option, and (b) the Irish backstop must be removed from the withdrawal agreement, even though the EU has said, and said again within minutes of the parliamentary vote, that that is not an option. We've gone from gridlock to groundhog day repeatedly throughout this sorry saga, and we'll be there again in two weeks' time. Westminster has kicked the can so many times down the road that can kicking should become the new national sport.

Now, Mrs May will go back to Brussels for the second time and try over the next fortnight to convince her EU counterparts to reopen negotiations, which they will again refuse to do, and the end result of this is that we are skidding towards a 'no deal' Brexit that Parliament has said it doesn't want but will be the default outcome unless article 50 is extended, which, paradoxically, Parliament voted against last night. Westminster, in essence, yesterday willed the end of blocking 'no deal' without willing the means of backing a viable alternative. The Brady amendment is not only undeliverable, it's indecipherable. That would never deter, of course, the likes of Boris Johnson, for whom having one's cake and eating it is an article of faith. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the temporary coalition that Theresa May has cobbled together with the ERG and the DUP is the unspeakable in pursuit of the unachievable. What precisely are these 'alternative arrangements'? Brexit negotiators spent two years trying to find these mythical alternatives to the backstop, and in the end even the British Government had to give up. Do we really believe they're now going to be miraculously discovered in the next two weeks? The backstop is there. The backstop is there to ensure that, if a broader trade agreement hasn't been reached, and other solutions can't be found, Ireland—north and south—doesn't see the return of a hard border; i.e., if alternative arrangements don't work, the backstop kicks in. What the EU is now being invited to agree to by the UK Government is alternative arrangements in the event that alternative arrangements don't work—in other words an insurance policy without insurance, a safety net without a net, a backstop without any back.

Now, some Tories fantasise that Mrs May is now going to go to Brussels and extract a u-turn out of them on the scale of Mrs Thatcher's famous Fontainebleau moment. But whatever else could be said of Thatcher—and there is a lot that could be said—she was at least consistent: the lady's not for turning. Mrs May has just conducted the mother of all u-turns. Up until three days ago, she was saying the backstop was necessary and she owed it to the people of Northern Ireland. Now she says she wants it binned. No wonder EU member states are unimpressed. The only real choice left now is either a 'no deal' Brexit or a people's vote. Politics is broken at this point in time. But, in 58 days' time, it will be more than mere politics that will be at stake, and people will not forgive us, and history will judge us harshly if we did not do everything we could to stop an avoidable disaster, which is why it is right, with Westminster stuck, that we come together here in this Parliament to find a way out of the mire. So, today is a positive step, but let's all remind ourselves of the most important word in this motion, 'immediately'. We have so little time. We need to act decisively, without delay, today.

Following yesterday's debate in the House of Commons, it's very evident that we need to prepare for Brexit. Many people watching the debate this day will find it very ironic, actually, that the joint Labour, Plaid, Lib Dem motion before us—because that's what it is, an unholy alliance of three parties in this National Assembly who are wishing to seek to frustrate Brexit—[Interruption.] You're seeking to condemn the UK Government for failing to engage in cross-party negotiations in point 1 of this motion, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Prime Minister has invited and held discussions with other political parties, including the leader of Plaid Cymru, including the First Minister of the Welsh Government—[Interruption.]

Will you take an intervention?

—and it is the Labour Party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has, thus far, failed to engage.

Are you taking an intervention?

I'll take one in a moment, Llywydd. It is a disgrace, frankly, that he's been happy to meet with terrorists without conditions in the past, yet he has not been prepared to meet with the Prime Minister until last night when he finally caved in under pressure. I'll take the intervention that came first. 

Okay. I'm sure he's been spending some time before the debate psyching himself up for this, but one of the things he said—. He talks about an 'unholy alliance' of Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Liberal Democrats: just last week, the Conservative Party was accusing the Labour Party of tribalism. You can't have both. 

Well, look, we've seen the tribalism in this Chamber, and it's very evident for everybody to see. [Interruption.] Not only have there been meetings between political leaders, but, of course, the Welsh Government itself has been involved, through the many meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which have included many, many conversations and discussions on Brexit.

Now, in point 2 of the motion, the Assembly's being asked to support the extension of the article 50 deadline. We were accused of wanting to kick the can further down the road a few moments ago in terms of the UK Government's position, and, yet, this is kicking the can right down—not just down the road, but on to the next street. You know, the reality is that, last night, during a series of votes, the UK Parliament soundly rejected those calls. A majority of MPs recognise that extending the deadline does absolutely nothing to solve the fundamental disagreements—[Interruption.]—that many people have on Brexit. So, voting to seek an extension here in this Chamber today is absolutely futile, and we know what it's motivated by; it's motivated by people who want to frustrate Brexit because they don't agree—

Will you take an intervention?

—with the opinion of the British people, which was expressed in the vote in June 2016. I'll take an intervention. 

Thank you for taking the intervention. Well, of course, the UK Parliament voted last night that 'no deal' was not an option. In that case, in negotiations with all the parties, a Prime Minister who's been accused of having an open door but a closed mind, do you not think it would be logical for the Prime Minister to now say that 'no deal' is not an option and that she should support the sovereignty of Parliament? 

No-one can say that 'no deal' is not an option because it requires the agreement of all parties. So, the Prime Minister is not in a position to say what other people's opinion is. [Interruption.]

What the Prime Minister is doing and has consistently been doing has been fighting hard to get the best possible deal so that we're not in the 'no deal' situation. That's why she has produced a deal, and, frankly, it is the only deal that's on the table, the only deal that has the possibility of being able to get through Parliament, and get the backing of Parliament, with this adjustment to the backstop that Parliament has voted to seek. So, we're in a position now where the Prime Minister has a very clear mandate to seek the renegotiation of that aspect of her deal with the European Union.

And to those who say that the only way to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland is to accept the backstop, I'm afraid that I disagree wholeheartedly because the problem, of course, is not just the fact that we have a situation where the backstop is a thing that we're not even allowed to get out of without the permission of the EU, because that's another fundamental thing that everybody else seems to ignore. But the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, told an EU committee just last week that in the event of a 'no deal' scenario, and I quote,

'we will have to find an operational way of carrying out checks and controls without putting back in place a border'.

Now, if the EU chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, is prepared to concede that it will be possible to carry out checks and controls without putting a hard border in place in a 'no deal' scenario, then it's absolutely possible to do the same in a 'deal' scenario under the arrangements as set out in the Prime Minister's deal. [Interruption.] Sorry, I haven't got time to take another intervention. 

I just want to say very briefly, point 3 of the motion makes it clear that the Welsh Government is now advocating preparations for a second referendum, yet the Welsh Government has continuously told people in Wales that it respects the result of the referendum in 2016. It clearly doesn't, Llywydd, because otherwise, it would be supporting the implementation of that view. Let's remind ourselves: the people of Wales, and the people of the UK, voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, and leave we must. A second referendum would represent an absolute betrayal of the people of Wales, it would set a dangerous precedent for our democracy.

So, in closing, Llywydd, I want to reiterate the Welsh Conservative Party's commitment to delivering Brexit, our determination to support efforts to do so with a deal, and in an orderly fashion, and our commitment to engage with others, including other parties in this Chamber, to see Wales and its people flourish when we leave the EU.

Thank you very much for that. So, 29 March is only a matter of weeks away, and for many businesses and organisations across Wales, the uncertainty about Brexit is very alarming. I know from conversations I've had in my own constituency with companies in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that they are very concerned about that. I can only surmise that representatives of UKIP and the Conservatives have not been talking to companies in their constituencies, because otherwise they would be—[Interruption.] No, I'm not taking an intervention. Because otherwise, they would have had the same response that I've had about the concerns that they have.

And we know that yesterday's about-turn by the Prime Minister may have won her some extra time with her own backbenchers, but it does seem, Adam, that they suddenly like the way that this lady is turning. But all I can hear is the tick-tock of the clock, and while the clock continues to tick, I'm alarmed at the toxic nature of the debate about our future relationship with our EU partners, and that should be a worry for all of us. Daily talk of a wartime mentality, being in the trenches, the spirit of the blitz; this is not what our relationship with the other 27 EU nations is about. At times, I feel that we're only one step away from calling our EU colleagues 'Johnny Foreigner'. For goodness's sake—the EU did not bring us to this mess. It was the Tories and their internal divisions over Europe that did, and I won't sit back and accept that their anti-EU rhetoric isn't trying to make the EU to be the bad boys in this situation. The EU did not ask us to leave. They remain united as 27 nations while, in the UK, our own Government can't unite as one.

So, for me, this is now a debate about protecting jobs in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. It's about ensuring that the security of our people is not threatened. It's about making sure that we have uninterrupted access to the medicines that our citizens need. It's about ensuring the rights of our citizens. It's about ensuring that we do not endanger what, quite frankly, is still a fragile peace in Ireland. 

Llywydd, as far back as last July I asked the then Brexit and finance Minister, now the First Minister, whether it was time for a pause in article 50. It was clear to me then, as it is now, that we didn't have the time to get an acceptable agreement on the terms of our departure from the EU. Now, six months later, the UK Prime Minister has done exactly what she said was not possible. She is going to go back to try and reopen the negotiations after telling us for months that it was her deal or no deal. 

But I still believe that a pause would give us all time for more considered negotiations and, importantly, to resolve some of the conflicting tensions in our own nation. I'm clear that a pause in negotiations is not overturning the referendum, it is simply amending the timetable for talks under article 50. Let me draw one parallel: if I was to sell my house today, it would probably take me until the end of March, probably at the earliest, to complete that process, and that would be the legal transaction just to sell one house. I can't see, therefore, how a whole country is going to renegotiate and complete all of the associated legal arrangements that are required for withdrawal by 29 March. I may be wrong, but, for me, common sense tells me that logistically that just isn't possible.

Having said that, I've no faith that this Prime Minister, however long she's got, is going to deliver what we need for our country. As I've said before, this is not about what is best for our country—this is now about holding the Tory party together. Running down the clock to a 'no deal' Brexit—[Interruption.]—to appease the DUP and the ERG would be a betrayal of monumental proportions. It's a risk that we cannot allow to happen. It would be the worst of all worlds, so I'm relieved that a majority of MPs last night gave an indication that no deal will not be the outcome after this next round of negotiations, but we do need to break any ongoing deadlock.

Throughout this process, I have not been an advocate of a second vote or referendum. Representing a 'leave' constituency, I have felt that there was an obligation for the UK Government to try to negotiate an effective deal for our exit. Even though it's become increasingly clear that there is currently little hope of getting consensus in Westminster, my preference is to ask for that pause—that extension of article 50—to see what consensus might yet be achievable. But, neither do I now dispute that it is also sensible to say that the UK Government should at least start preparing for the possibility of a second vote, because should the position remain deadlocked in Westminster, and if we do not have a general election to help resolve the issue, it is only the people who can have the final say on whether or not this final deal should be accepted, so I will be voting for this motion today.

I will speak briefly about why I believe this motion before us is a valuable one, and why we in Plaid Cymru have been able to come to an agreement on a form of words with the Government, even though there are differences between us on several elements of the Brexit debate. But I think that this is a significant step forward in terms of putting the Assembly’s stamp on the Brexit debate, even though it does feel quite hopeless at present that any influence or any emphasis is given to the voice of our national Parliament in this debate.

Clause 1 reminds us that this is a Conservative Party project—that’s what Brexit is, to all intents and purposes—and that there has been a need from the outset for cross-party talks if the Prime Minister was going to show that any consideration was being given to the opinions of other people. For Darren Millar to say that the Prime Minister has reached out—January 2019 is not the time to do that, when the referendum happened in June 2016. The clause also includes a reference to the need for the devolved administrations to have been listened to clearly from the outset, because there was a valid opinion here that needed to be heard in the debate.

Does the Member accept that there have been ongoing discussions between the Welsh Government and the UK Government throughout this Brexit process? I mentioned the joint ministerial council meetings earlier on, in which Brexit has been a constant feature on the agenda. That shows that there's been engagement with the devolved nations in a meaningful way. 

I remember my late friend Steffan Lewis saying that if he was a nationalist going into the meetings with the UK Government, well, he was certainly a nationalist coming out of them, because, as the former First Minister said behind me, they were a complete waste of time in terms of many of the inter-governmental discussions.

The point that we’re making in this motion today is that the voice of our national Parliament needs to be heard. Yes, there are inter-governmental discussions that have been taking place on an inadequate basis, but there hasn’t been enough of an emphasis given to the voice of our own national Parliament.

Moving to the second clause, the second clause reiterates the view expressed in the vote in the Assembly recently rejecting a ‘no deal’ outcome, and it also reminds us that this date before us, 29 March, is a result of a huge political error that was made back in 2016 to trigger article 50 and in an unrealistic way. Our party in Westminster did reject that proposition, but we are hoping that, through this vote, we can express the view of our national Parliament that we do now believe that we need to extend article 50 because we need more time. Decisions made under this kind of time pressure are often not very good decisions.

The third clause is the vital one. We come here to the issue of a new public vote, to ask people democratically whether they now like the Brexit set out before them. We say very clearly that we believe that it does appear now that there is no way to come to a sensible outcome that would keep Wales in the single market, for example, or within a customs union, and would make the point that because of the inevitable element, as it appears to us, we need to move at once to prepare, to give the Welsh people a voice in 2019, asking their opinion now as to whether they believe this is for the benefit of Wales.

Point 4 reiterates, as I have already said, the need for further engagement with the devolved legislators.

I’ll move now to our amendment. What is here is an idea. I don’t know whether it’s a perfect idea, but it is an idea about how we can try to express this parliamentary national voice, possibly by having the Welsh Government bring a delegation together to speak in Westminster and Whitehall at a governmental level and at a parliamentary level, to give the Welsh perspective and to give our perspective. Maybe there is further work to be done on that, but I do think it’s a good idea—[Interruption.] Mick Antoniw. 

I appreciate it's an idea and it's a proposal and so on, but will you recognise that, in terms of the position representing the Welsh Assembly, you've got a First Minister who's almost living in Downing Street at the moment trying to engage with UK Government, and, of course, at the inter-parliamentary forum, which is a meeting of all the constitutional and legislative bodies, the Welsh position has been put time and time again by Dai Rees and me, who attend that forum, and even only the other week or so, with Chloe Smith, again presenting that? I don't have a particular objection, but I just wonder what the point is when that position is so clearly put at the moment. It may actually be a distraction from the real issue of constitutional change. 

I recognise the point that you make and I recognise the value there has been in some of the contact that there has been. We think there's more that can be done. We encourage innovation in how, you know, in these last few weeks even, we look to maximise leverage for Wales in any way we can. But it's for that reason of thinking maybe there's another way that we can discuss that we will, with your permission, not push this to a vote today, Llywydd, and hopefully we can have further conversations about how we can work innovatively on this. But I think we do have here a motion that we are pleased to be able to table jointly with the Government that again states a clear position by the National Assembly for Wales, standing up for what is right for Wales in the Brexit context.  

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for his speech. He says that, last night, he was able to agree a form of words for the motion with Welsh Government. I just wonder when Welsh Government were cosying up to Plaid Cymru, who want to break up our United Kingdom, whether they thought of an alternative approach that they might take, one of supporting the UK Government in its negotiating position and going to the European Union and saying, 'We don't want 'no deal', so therefore you need to change your position so that the withdrawal agreement becomes acceptable to the British House of Commons'. When there is a negotiation between the UK Government on one side and the European Commission on the other side, does the Welsh Government not think, are they not concerned about what side they appear to be on when they start a motion with the phrase 'condemns the UK Government'? What does that say about them? They then ludicrously go on to condemn it for its failure to engage in cross-party negotiations, when it is their leader who, until tea time today, was refusing to meet the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?  

Will you take an intervention? 

I will. 

What is the point of actually having a meeting with a Prime Minister who says, 'Come and meet with me and discuss, but I will not change any of my red lines'? The point now, of course, is that Parliament has said 'no deal' has to come off the table. It has said that, and the question is whether Theresa May will listen to Parliament.  

The Member is right that the House of Commons has said that, but it said it by 318 votes to 310, and it chose only to say that and express an opinion, and when given the opportunity two or three times to do something about it, voted by a majority twice as large not to and to support the UK Government in its negotiating position to put pressure on the European Union to make alternative arrangements to the backstop, so that there can be a deal that Parliament can vote on and agree. That is the only way to avoid 'no deal' unless, as more and more obviously, debate by debate, we see from those benches you want to reverse the outcome of the referendum, ignore the people in Islwyn or in Merthyr Tydfil who voted 56.4 per cent to leave the European Union. They were told by their Member that they'd got it wrong, and she now thinks they should prepare to vote again until they agree with her, because she somehow is better. I don't agree with that. 

Will you take an intervention? 

I had thought that, in the third part of this motion, actually, the Welsh Government was not willing to call for a second referendum—was using weaselly words that work should begin immediately on preparing for a public vote, whatever that may be; perhaps it was a general election, perhaps they couldn't agree. Perhaps, like the people in the House of Commons, who didn't even dare put an amendment for a second referendum because they know how few MPs support it, that actually they weren't pressing for a second referendum. But we hear from Member after Member that that is what they want. They think the people of Wales got it wrong. They think they are better. They think their voters, their electors, should be made to vote again because they disagree. Well, that is not what we believe on these benches. We had a referendum. We voted to leave in the UK and in Wales. We should respect that result.    

Will you take an intervention? 

I will. 

It strikes me that the seriousness with which that referendum result was given, or the respect that it was given, has been reflected in the fact that we have spent two and a half years trying to see if there's a way of reaching an agreement. It's not as if it's been ignored; we've just got to the point after that negotiation and seeing, 'Listen, this is the alternative', and perhaps politicians can't make that decision. It should be up to the people.  

The Member didn't accept the result from the word 'go'. He's managed to inveigle the Labour Party gradually into agreeing with Plaid Cymru on a Brexit in name only and pushing that, and, as we get closer and closer to the deadline, being more and more clear in their belief that their voters were wrong and they should be made to vote again. But when they say, in part 2 of this motion, that it,  

'Reiterates its view that a no deal outcome would be catastrophic', but then go on to request an extension of article 50, they take the pressure off the European Union to agree a deal. Now, maybe they want to extend it because they want to extend and extend and extend so we stay in the European Union forever. If so, why don't they come out and honestly state that as their position? 

If not, we have a backstop with Ireland that basically will mean that the United Kingdom is not allowed to leave the customs union unless the EU gives us permission. It will mean that Northern Ireland is subject to regulatory annexation by the European Union outside the UK regime. Those positions are unacceptable. The border should be dealt with through the trade discussions, and, with goodwill on both sides, we can avoid having a hard border, we can continue free trade, and we can have a prosperous United Kingdom and a prosperous Ireland. But what that requires is for the European Union to change its position, come to alternative arrangements instead of that Brexit, instead of that backstop, and then we will have a deal that takes us out of the European Union  and makes a success for Wales, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  

Presiding Officer, we've heard from different parts of the Chamber this afternoon a whole number of reasons why we're in the mess we're in today. But not from one person—not from one person—who advocated leaving the European Union have we heard any recognition that it was the lies told in that referendum that's led directly to the undermining of our politics today and the situation we're facing today. The political crisis that we're facing today is a direct consequence—a direct consequence—of the lies told in that referendum. Let me say this: we have moved, in a little less than three years, from being promised £350 million a week for the national health service to the threat of soldiers on the street and the imposition of martial law. It's not a great success, is it?

And let me tell you this as well, when I hear these Conservative Members—when I hear these Conservative Members—telling me that I should respect the referendum, what I hear are other Conservative Members who not so long ago were speaking in the House of Commons to undermine the devolution vote in 1997 within two months of the ballots closing. They didn't respect that referendum during the campaign, they didn't respect the referendum when the result was announced, and they've fought hard to stop the devolution process ever since.

So, don't you come to this place and lecture us on respect for the political process, because what you've done—what you've done—over three years has been to undermine the political structures and institutions of this country in a way that I cannot remember at any point in my lifetime. And I think many of us, wherever we are sitting in this Chamber today, will recognise and understand that the last few years have been the worst few years for politics that any of us can remember. [Interruption.] I will give way to him.

The fundamental reason those few years have been so difficult is people like the Member will not accept the result of the referendum. Now, the fact is, his constituency voted 'leave' more than anywhere else in Wales.

Sit down. Sit down. Let me tell you—let me tell you—those votes were bought with snake oil, and they were bought with a fantasy. And let me tell you this—let me tell you this—when I listen to the closest allies and friends of this country speaking with horror at what they're seeing, I take notice and so should you. The words of Simon Coveney, the Irish Tánaiste, this morning should reverberate in this Chamber. Somebody who has sought to work with the United Kingdom Government, somebody who I remember from European Council meetings, who is more pro-UK than any other Irish politician I've met, is wringing his hands with horror at the situation created by the British Conservative Party and the UK Government. And when I hear Neil Hamilton telling me that we should be looking forward to the great choice of food that we'll have on our empty shelves in a few weeks' time, what I hear are the leaders of retail businesses telling us it's a lie and a fantasy. Perhaps you should listen to what you're being told.

So, I welcome the Government's motion today. I welcome the Government's motion, and I welcome the commitment of the Welsh Government to a second referendum, and I welcome the commitment of the Welsh Government to a vote that is based on a premise and a prospectus that we will all understand. I hope that referendum will be a straight choice between the deal that Mrs May has negotiated—which is an appalling deal, so we hear from her own party—. I don't understand how Darren can ask us to support a deal that he himself, through his criticism of the backstop, says it's unworkable and that we need an alternative to.

Will you give way?

And that is the deal that their Government themselves are asking us to support. I will give way.

I am grateful to you for giving way. I supported the deal. I wanted to remain in the European Union and I fought hard to achieve that, and failed. But I don't think it was failure in the face of a barrage of lies, though there was a lot of slipping and sliding what people said. But I've accepted the result.

I greatly regret the fact that if every Conservative had voted for that deal two weeks ago, it would have passed by one vote. And I greatly regret the fact that an awful lot of Members of the Labour Party know that the backstop could have gone through if enough of them had supported the deal as well. And then we wouldn't be in this current position.

Look, I'm not going to, for one moment, defend the position taken by the Labour Party in Westminster. The vote on Monday on the immigration Bill was an absolute shambles; it was a disgrace. The Labour Party should approach this on the basis of our values and our principles and not on the basis of expediency, and there's been far too much of that from our front bench in London, and I regret that as well, and I've been very, very clear about that.

So, let's ensure that we move forward now to a vote, that we are able to suspend article 50 to enable the position to be clarified, that we are able then to have a debate that is based on facts and understanding and based on an option to remain in the European Union and to remain a leading part of one of the most powerful international institutions in the world. Far better that than to shrink back into some imperial fantasy about the past. I want to see a future where we can all participate in European decision making and where we can all look forward to a future that our children will be proud of and not ashamed because we turned our backs when the going got tough.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this somewhat fiery debate today. Since the referendum and since entering the Assembly, I've done all I can to try and unite those people who voted to leave and those who voted to remain in the EU in my constituency. It would be naive to second-guess exactly why each and every person voted the way they did, although I do believe in some of the comments made by Alun Davies there. But also what is really clear to me—when I spoke to constituents, and those included students, businesses, older voters and others, it is clear that they voted in the hope that their lives and living standards would get better. Nobody wanted to vote to make themselves poorer or to be worse off.

Llywydd, earlier this month, I had the opportunity to host a Brexit conference, which we discussed in this Chamber before, and the views and findings from that conference were very clear: people wanted clarity for future investments, they wanted people to work together cross-party, and they wanted the Prime Minister to rule out a 'no deal'. I still believe to this day that the Prime Minister has been on the back foot and has been far too slow to rule out that no deal. Any view that not doing so is somehow strengthening her negotiating hand is a farce, and because that hasn't been the case so far, despite the Prime Minister's so-called tough approach to Europe, she has had to face embarrassing defeats and our reputation around the world has been damaged.

The Prime Minister should have and could have extended that hand of friendship, not just to those in Europe but to MPs across the House of Commons, AMs in this place and especially to the business community. The Prime Minister did not have to do this alone, but as a result she has been found wanting. And it's not the well off who will suffer and it's not us directly in this Chamber who will suffer. It's the people, like many of my constituents, who struggle every single day to make ends meet: those on universal credit, those who go to food banks, those struggling to make their mortgage payments, those taking the risks to start new business and those who work for businesses that trade with Europe. And I'm not prepared, Llywydd, to see those people suffer because politicians can't work together because certain politicians—

Will you take an intervention, Jack?

—seem unwilling to compromise. Yes I will.

Thank you for taking an intervention. You've listed a whole load of issues that are very real to people. Would you agree with me that it wasn't our membership of the EU that created the poverty that exists in this country but that it is as a consequence of the political decision of austerity by a Government that still doesn't recognise the need to do something for people and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the membership of the EU, even though they traded that?

Thank you, Joyce, and I absolutely agree with you there, and I've said many times in this Chamber that austerity needs to end, and that comes directly from London.

Carrying on, I'm not willing either, Llywydd, to see the North Wales region suffer, and the impact of north Wales on the Welsh economy cannot be and should not be underestimated. We in north Wales have got a higher employment rate, lower economic inactivity levels, gross value added per head higher than the rest of Wales, and gross disposable household income per head higher than the rest of Wales.

The Government last week was absolutely right to use the time on Tuesday to deliver a series of statements on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit, and I saw some people on social media, including some journalists, saying that that was a pointless exercise. I do not believe them. It is also very important to listen to experts in these turbulent times, and I find it completely irresponsible to shrug our shoulders, not report on and disregard warnings from companies such as Airbus in my own constituency, who have warned time and time again about the need for a deal.

I will finish my contribution today by saying that I do believe there is a deal to be struck in Parliament and the Prime Minister will find her job a lot easier if she ruled out a 'no deal' completely. She could, and she should, have done that a long, long time ago. Llywydd, political game playing will do nothing to improve the lives of those people who are just about managing, as the Prime Minister likes to say. Members of the Chamber, I will finish on this final comment: the people of Wales and the people of the UK deserve so much better.

I'm pleased to follow my colleague Jack Sargeant because I think he brought back the reality of what goes on on the ground as a consequence of this whole issue. I was going to talk about the chaos last night we saw in Westminster, which was the culmination of two and half years of frantic efforts by a Government that didn't have a clue what it was doing. But it is important we remind ourselves of actually what 'no deal' does mean for the people we all represent. Every one of us was elected by the people of Wales and a 'no deal' impacts upon them more than us. Jack was quite right, we're probably in a position where it won't affect us so badly, but our constituents are—. I'll give you an example in my constituency, as Jack did in his: steelworks. You all know the steelworks in my constituency—you should by now, anyway—and we all know the challenge it was facing two years ago. And it's still facing challenges. I met with steelworkers this week and the consequences of a 'no deal' are—you might think, 'Well, there's not going to be much tariffs on steel, so it's not going to be a problem.' But, of course, they serve the automotive industry and there are huge tariffs on the automotive industry. So, 80 per cent of their market goes to the automotive industry. But the other aspect they serve is, obviously, to sell steel elsewhere. And on WTO rules—I offer UKIP an opportunity because in their amendment, they want to go to WTO rules. Tell me where WTO rules are better than what we have now? [Interruption.] Yes, I'm more than happy.

The British people voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union. That means leaving the customs union, that means leaving the single market. I didn't want a 'no deal' exit from the EU, I wanted a free trade deal with the EU, but it takes two to tango. Are we actually just going to capitulate to the bureaucrats of Brussels or are we going to listen to the British people?

Llywydd, I think we heard from the horse's mouth ourselves: there is no better deal than what we've got at the moment, and WTO is not going to improve. In fact, in steel, there's a WTO agreement. We can actually import steel from Turkey without tariffs. We have to pay 40 per cent on steel going to Turkey. That is going to damage our industry. And we face other rules and other consequences because we lose the protection of the EU if we go out without a deal and we will face US 232 sanctions as well as everything else. The protection the EU has will go. So, the steel industry suffers badly on WTO rules as we leave, and that's the impact we have on our communities. An industry that is a key industry in my constituency will be damaged because of that issue. And going on WTO rules, as their amendment says, will be damaging to my constituents and the constituents of the region around me. So, we cannot do that. And my constituency did vote for it, and I will not deny that, but I'm not actually saying anything else, but I'm telling you there are implications. And let's remember one thing: the two and a half years we've had since then, you know my role has been looking at the implications of Brexit, and we've been taking evidence of this, and now they're identifying some of the issues that will happen when we leave on 29 March without a deal. I'll take an intervention.

With Turkey, the Member gives an example of why it's so bad to be in a customs union with the EU while having no say over its trade policy. But does he recognise that one positive result for the competitiveness of steel produced in his constituency since the vote to leave the European Union is an exchange rate that is 15 per cent lower? And, yes, WTO will bring challenges, but it will also likely bring an even more competitive exchange rate.

I appreciate the exchange rate is more competitive and, therefore, the exports become more attractive, but I also have to remind the Member of the imports that are required in the raw materials. And whilst we've been in a situation where you have six-month deals down the line, we will come to a point where that's going to end and we have to start looking at the changes and costs increasing on the raw materials. So, it's not a win situation. So, in a sense—. Please don't say, 'Oh, well, it's working one way but forget the other way.' It does impose upon us greatly. 

Can I also remind Members that we had a debate yesterday on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's reports on 'no deal' preparation, and we discussed very carefully the implications facing us of no deal. And I'm very much appreciative of the Welsh Government's statements last week on the actions they're responding to. But take today's report on health, and we talked about two things on health. Today, the chief executive of University Hospitals Birmingham has indicated that operations may be cancelled as a consequence of a 'no deal', and he wasn't saying, 'Look, we're not going to be able to do it, because—'. There'll be some changes. But what he was saying was, 'We can't manage the huge distribution of all the medicines that are being stored. We can't manage the replacement of equipment that is elsewhere.' We buy our medical equipment very much from Europe and if we don't have a deal, how do we ensure that the spare parts and other pieces come in? It is a consequence of a 'no deal' that we will see our constituents bearing the brunt of some of the difficulties. Unfortunately, in many of the discussions on the politics side, we forget the people we serve. The people we serve need better from us and I think the issues of no deal are not acceptable for that.

We are out of time for this debate, but with its importance at this stage, I'm prepared to extend that time, but if the remaining contributors could be short in their contributions, I'm sure fellow Members would welcome that. Hefin David.

I doubt if anything more I can say in this Chamber will persuade any other Member to change their position on this. But I think when you have reservations about a motion, I think it's wise to report it to the Chamber to be recorded on the Record. I respect very much those people involved with the people's vote campaign, and some of the best speeches I've heard in this Chamber have been from Lynne Neagle arguing for a people's vote, but I don't share that view. I have a great reluctance to support a referendum. I read, as Mark Reckless said, the words 'public vote'—I read that as 'referendum'; I understand that to be the Government calling for a referendum. I feel that the perceived need to hold a referendum is a sign of weakness in a representative democracy and a weakness that is demonstrating the starkness that is the lack of strength of a representative democracy, but I would say that is true of the very first referendum we held on the Brexit decision and it would be true of a future referendum.

Therefore, I am somewhat reluctant to support the Government and Plaid Cymru motion, but I am reassured by the fact that it says that a public vote will be taken when it is the only option that remains. And I fear what we saw last night in Westminster is a failure to reach an agreement that could've been reached in Parliament, and I fear that that will continue, and therefore the only option we will be left with is a referendum, which will be a suboptimal option, but it will be the only option. But we should also remember that it's come about because of the failure of our democracy and we should all, here and in Westminster, take responsibility for that.

Finally, I'd say, when you try and solve intractable problems with binary choices, you don't come up with solutions and I think we should be very careful about moving to a referendum without continuing to work, and, as Dawn Bowden said, delaying, possibly, article 50, and continuing to work for consensus in Westminster.

There are only a few points I want to add, and those really aren't to do with the pros and cons of what's happening, but actually the state of the constitutional crisis that we're in and I think having an understanding of how serious that crisis is.

We have a Government that doesn't have a majority, it no longer has a mandate, and as I've said before, it really doesn't have any legitimacy and that is the crux of it. Because the honourable thing to do—the honourable thing that I think all parties would, in the past, have done, when they had such major defeats in Westminster, would've been to go to the people to seek a new mandate. And that, ultimately, is the real way forward—to actually seek a mandate from the people—and that's what our constitution actually requires. But when you have a situation where you've got a Government that is so obsessed with its own internal politics rather than the interests of the country, you end up with a situation of constitutional paralysis and that's where we are now. And that's why you end up with a position, within our unique constitution that is a combination of prerogative convention and procedures—you end up with a situation where someone who is potentially the next leader of the Conservative Party—Rees-Mogg—is talking about the Queen exercising her prerogative and proroguing Parliament. That is sheer—[Interruption.] That is sheer insanity. But what a crisis that you've actually got a potential leader of the Conservative Party seeing the way out to revert to the tactics of the English civil war some 300 years earlier. Is that what you've actually become?

What, for me, is perhaps one of the most serious issues that emerges at the moment is the fact that there are still something like 600 statutory instruments that have to be passed through Parliament before the end of March, otherwise we will end up with whole gaps in legislation that are just not working. We will leave the EU and we will not have a viable and lawful legal basis on which we can operate in so many areas. That is why—and I put this to the Counsel General—the issue really, one of the most immediate issues, is actually an extension of article 50, because any rational assessment of where we are is that whatever view we take we cannot resolve the paralysis we are in without more time, and we desperately need that time. One of the most immediate issues is that we've got to have, and apply to the EU for, an extension of article 50. Do you agree?

There is a film that is very popular at the moment in cinemas. It's called Stan & Ollie. I'm reminded of the catchphrase that that comedy pairing had: 'This is another fine mess you've gotten me into.' And what a fine mess we are in as a result of what has happened at Westminster. The reality is this: the Prime Minister said to Britain, 'I have a deal; the deal is all there is—it's this deal or no deal.' And now she is saying, 'Well, forget I said that; I'm now going to go back to the EU'—who, incidentally, don't want to talk to the UK—'and get a better deal.' It's a sign of weakness. I must remember, next time I buy a car, to go back the following day and say, 'Actually, I now want to renegotiate the price, because I'm not happy with the price I paid in the first place.' Michel Barnier said to me in July last year, 'The problem I have is the UK doesn't know what it wants,' and that's exactly the problem we face now. And could I remind Members that no party in 2017 stood on a basis of exiting the EU with no deal? The problem we have is that in 2016 the referendum was based on an idea, not a plan. Nobody could say with certainty what would happen if people voted to leave. And that means, of course, that there will be some in this Chamber who will interpret the vote as saying it is a vote for leaving the EU on whatever terms, even if it means no deal, and there's no way of disproving that. There are others, like me, who advocate that people didn't vote on the single market or the customs union; I didn't hear that on the doorstep. There's no way of disproving that either. So, how are we to get past this impasse? We know, in 2017, people rejected a hardish Brexit in the general election, so we know they don't want to go down that line. 

I'm troubled, Llywydd, at the cavalier attitude—probably the right phrase, given what Mick Antoniw has just said—that is taken towards Ireland. The reality is that, in the referendum campaign, Ireland wasn't mentioned because people forgot the border was there. I didn't, because I'm familiar with that border, and what I can say is this: that border is impossible to police, there are more than 200 crossing points, smuggling has been endemic for many, many years, and it is a place where there was great conflict. When you crossed that border in the early 1990s, you crossed into Newry, and you would see helicopters zigzagging across the sky because there was a fear they would be shot down. Belfast had a helicopter in the air all day long and all night long, there was a ring of steel around the city, and people were being shot on a regular basis. More than 3,000 people were killed as a result of the 25 years of conflict brought to an end in 1998. We toy with that agreement at our peril, and it disappoints me when I hear some, perhaps not in this Chamber but outside, who take the view that this is some kind of small problem that could easily be resolved. I ask the question: what are these alternative arrangements that we have been told exist, because for the past two years none have been found? There is no border anywhere in the world that is governed by a system that relies solely on the use of technology, and the reason for that is this: it doesn't exist. And so saying, 'Let's go back and find alternative arrangements' is simply a way of putting off the inevitable for a fortnight, and that's a fortnight we do not have, both as a nation here in Wales, nor as the UK. 

So, now we're in a position where we're looking to talk to people who won't talk to us about arrangements that we have no idea what they look like and nor does anyone else, and all at the behest, all at the behest, of 10 Members of Parliament representing the DUP—one section, but 36 per cent of the population in Northern Ireland; very much the tail wagging the dog. They say, 'Well, look, we want to make sure that there's no regulatory difference between GB and Northern Ireland.' Well, that doesn't apply for abortion, that doesn't apply for civil partnerships. It's picking and choosing what you want. The reality is that the political establishment have had a blind spot for Ireland and now, of course, they find that that is the one issue that is taking up so much time.

I can't take lessons from the Conservative Party because, for eight years, they did not accept the result of the 1997 referendum. In 2005, they stood on a manifesto that said, 'We want another referendum'. If it was okay then— 

Will you take an intervention?

—then what is the problem with the principle now? Of course, David. 

I'm grateful for his giving way, because I was elected in 1999. I accepted the result in 1997. The senior members of the group, once we moved to Nick Bourne's leadership, did a lot of work at that time, and our members didn't always thank us. I think you refer to UK manifesto—loose wording in that—but it was never—never—the policy of the Welsh Conservative Party in this Chamber.

Well, it was certainly the policy of the UK party, and, of course, the Prime Minister has been reminded of that in the past. Certainly, it is the case that the referendum was not accepted by the UK—. I hear what he says about the Welsh Conservatives, and I know his own personal view, but the reality is it was not accepted by the UK Conservatives and, of course, it's not accepted by UKIP now. So, when I hear people saying, 'We shouldn't have a second referendum', I dismiss what they say.

Two more points I want to make—I see time is coming to an end, Presiding Officer—since when were the views of business to be dismissed so flippantly by the Conservative Party, by UKIP? Apparently, the voice of business, apparently, business leaders—[Interruption.]—are part of project fear. Some of the language I've heard from free marketeers—. In a sec. Free marketeers would make the most strident Marxists blush, because they have run down businesses and have said, 'Businesses don't know what they're talking about.'

Of course.

You've talked about the need to listen to the voice of business. The voice of business supported the Prime Minister's deal and encouraged everybody in the House of Commons to do so when it was put there to the original vote. Your party didn't, though, did it? Why not?

Well, I mean, that ignores the fact that a large number of Conservative MPs didn't support her either. That's the problem that we have here; she couldn't carry her own party. That's the problem you have in your own party.

Just one final point—[Interruption.] Just one final point: circumstances have changed in the last two years. I do not see why we now cannot ask people to express a view in the light of current circumstances. Surely, Brexiteers or remainers, we will spend all our time debating what Brexit should look like without asking the people. So, let's settle the question once and for all and settle the question by asking the people.

The Counsel General and the Minister for Brexit to reply to the debate, Jeremy Miles. 

Diolch, Llywydd. May I start by thanking the Member for Bridgend for reminding us of the powerful impact in the daily lives of people of judgments that are made in relation to Brexit, and how getting those judgments wrong can have catastrophic consequences in real lives? There were a range of contributions from Assembly Members in this debate. The vast majority I welcomed. Some, I'm afraid, I disagreed with fundamentally.

Adam Price and Dawn Bowden were reflecting on the response that we would get from the European Union. We know, don't we—President Tusk reminded us just last night—the backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation. So, we believe that there's an obvious alternative Brexit deal available, as several key figures in the EU have acknowledged: to commit to a closer economic relationship of the sort that constituents in Jack Sargeant's constituency and steelworkers and large businesses in David Rees's constituency would want to see—the form of Brexit this Assembly has supported. But even mentioning this has caused outrage yet again today from those hardline Brexiteers like Neil Hamilton, who believe that 'no deal' is actually a desirable outcome. The Member for UKIP actually advocates a 'no deal' outcome. Let's be clear about that. We've said—. I've said—. I said at the start—

Will the Member give way?

I said at the start—. Yes. 

I said in the course of an intervention with David Rees that I didn't want a 'no deal', but this has been forced upon us by the intransigence of the EU and the stupidity of the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Well, I was puzzled by that bit of it, and she made lots of great sounds about free trade agreements in defence of an amendment that advocated for 'no deal'. But, as I said in my opening remarks, the Prime Minister needs to find lasting support for her approach to Brexit.

I listened to Darren Millar's contribution and I have to say I think his ad hominem attacks on Jeremy Corbyn just failed to raise the level of debate in the Chamber. His support for the Brady amendment is completely stunning—an absolutely ludicrous strategy on the part of the Prime Minister that she should be whipping her own backbenchers to support amendments to the deal she said could not be amended. But it demonstrates at least more loyalty to her than many of her backbenchers, as indeed does Mark Reckless, who wasn't even elected here as a Conservative.

They both talked about—. They both talked about respecting the referendum. [Interruption.] They both spoke about respecting the referendum. The reason that we're in the situation that we are in this debate today is because Parliament has failed to reconcile the result of the referendum with the promises that were made to people at that time. This is not easy work. We've spent over two years trying to get to that position, and Parliament has not found itself able to reconcile that, and the reason for that is that Theresa May is failing to deliver on promises made to people during that referendum. That is a fundamental challenge at the heart of her strategy, and why it is failing so miserably.

We hope that Parliament can still unite around a Norway plus-type deal of the sort that this Assembly has supported and the Welsh Government would support. Who knows if that may yet be achievable, but the dire consequences of further delay and the deadlock in Parliament mean that we must now prepare for a public vote. 

We will not be supporting the UKIP amendment for the simple fact that it is directly contrary to the interests of the people of Wales, and the support they claim for their ideological 'no deal' crash-out simply is not borne out in our communities. 

I am grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for indicating that he won't be pressing the Plaid Cymru amendment to a vote. In his speech he reminded us, importantly, not just of the role of relationships between Governments, but also the important role of relationships between Parliaments in this most crucial issue that we all face at this time. I hope that, in that spirit, our Parliament can send out today yet again another clear signal of our view, and I urge your Members to support the motion.

I'm given to understand that Rhun ap Iorwerth wishes to withdraw amendment 2. Does any Member object to the withdrawal of amendment 2? Amendment 2 is therefore withdrawn. 

Amendment 2 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I will defer voting on this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.