I'm grateful to the First Minister for seeing his statement in advance. You state in the statement that the proposals set out in 'Securing Wales' Future' were reflected in Jeremy Corbyn's letter to Theresa May last week. But that isn't exactly the case, is it? I quote 'Securing Wales' Future':

'The EU Customs Union delivers benefits for Welsh business.... We believe at this stage that remaining part of the EU Customs Union, including for primary agricultural and fisheries products, remains the best position for Welsh and UK business.'

What Jeremy Corbyn calls for is a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union that would include alignment with the union customs code, a common external tariff and agreement on commercial policy that includes a UK say on future EU trade deals. Now, that's not the EU customs union as we understand it, certainly, and, indeed, that proposal is currently impossible legally under EU treaty law. So, would he accept—? On the single market as well, the agreement that we negotiated between our two parties was—. We preferred membership, you preferred participation, but, essentially, it was remaining part of the single market, whereas only this afternoon Jeremy Corbyn, asked specifically about that, said that he rejects that idea and what he wants is a tariff-free trade arrangement. So, would he at least accept that actually what Jeremy Corbyn is advancing is not the same as we negotiated between our two parties? 

On the question of the backstop, it remains to me one of the more curious elements of the Labour Party frontbench position in Westminster that they continue to express their concerns about the backstop, despite different comments that have been made by Labour Party representatives here. The shadow Brexit Secretary still says there are difficulties with it and there are echoes here of what the DUP and some of the wider fringes of the Conservative Party are saying. 

Finally, to focus on the core issue really, 38 days away from crashing out, as you said, we're clear that there is only one means possible now realistically of avoiding this and that's the people's vote. I was going to castigate you for actually leaving that out completely of your statement. I re-read it. It wasn't in the written statement, was it? It was added in in response to First Minister's questions. So, it's true, they aren't a complete waste of time. You're almost like Jeremy Corbyn in reverse. He had a reference to the people's vote in the first draft of the letter and it was taken out. You didn't have a reference to the people's vote in your written draft and you put it in. But I rejoice at that. There was a rowing back, and, suddenly, a small step in the right direction.

But, you know, when are we going to have progress? You talk about the importance of 'no deal', but no progress is at least as toxic to where we are. So, when will we finally have an unequivocal statement from you, First Minister, in favour of calling for a people’s vote now?

Jeremy Corbyn actually said this afternoon that he supported a popular decision at the end of the process. I’ve no idea what that means. Perhaps you can elucidate further. Does it mean a final-say referendum at the end of the transition period—a position that’s been advanced previously by Mick Antoniw? Does it mean that the Labour frontbench are going to support the Kyle-Wilson amendment? Apparently, John McDonnell says they’re going to make a decision this week on that, on a confirmatory referendum. Did you discuss that in Cabinet this morning? Are you able to tell us what the position is?

You referred, finally, to your meeting that you had with the leader of the opposition. Well, here’s a genuine offer: why don’t we meet together to start the preparations—the immediate preparations that we’ve called for—for the people’s vote? Why don’t you and I meet together to start the preparations, not just for calling for that referendum, but holding it and winning it here in Wales?