Llywydd, it is clear that the Prime Minister has lost the trust of Parliament. She's been careering from one side of the road to the other, appeasing first the Brexiteers then the remainers in her own ranks instead of setting a steady course. The road on which she is driving us still leads to a cliff edge.

First we had the delay to the meaningful vote in December, then a historically unprecedented defeat of the Prime Minister's deal. Then, instead of genuinely reaching out on a cross-party basis, the Prime Minister is seeking to placate the hardcore in her own ranks, and pursuing a strategy of running down the clock. Most disastrously of all, she agreed to the Brady amendment, in effect reneging on the deal she had reached with our 27 EU partners—a deal that she had repeatedly and solemnly told the House of Commons was the best available. When the First Minister was in Brussels last week he was left in no doubt that this volte face had hugely undermined not just the Prime Minister's personal credibility, but goodwill towards the United Kingdom as a whole. Then, last week, faced by a revolt from some of the more rational members within her Cabinet, she again threw sand in the eyes of her MPs, promising a binding vote on an extension to article 50 at the eleventh hour only if her deal is yet again rejected, and if Parliament repeats its crystal clear view that 'no deal' is unacceptable.

Llywydd, is it not telling that, despite the Prime Minister giving her word on this series of votes, MPs still felt compelled to vote on an amendment saying the exact same thing in order to press the Prime Minister to honour her promise? And isn't it even more telling that, despite both Government and opposition front benches supporting this amendment, 20 Conservative Brexiteers voted against it, and over 80 Conservative MPs and all but one of the DUP Members abstained. If further evidence were needed that these extremists stand ready to pull the rug from under the Prime Minister at the moment of their choosing, that is it.

And yet the Government still won't rule out 'no deal'. The Prime Minister could give that commitment and she has refused to. How can the Prime Minister justify the statement that the Government will ultimately make a success of 'no deal'? This on the same day as the UK Government published their assessment of what 'no deal' means—an analysis that makes it abundantly clear that the UK Government is not even remotely prepared for such an outcome. By their own assessment, only two thirds of the UK Government's most critical 'no deal' projects are on track. Fewer than a quarter of the businesses that currently export to the EU have applied for the documentation they will need to continue to do so in a 'no deal' situation. On trade, the trade Secretary's assurances that all existing EU trade agreements would be in place by 29 March lie in tatters. Agreements will not be in place for some of the key trading nations outside the EU, including Japan and Turkey. We are still waiting, with three weeks to go, for the Government to publish its proposals for UK tariffs in the event of 'no deal'. Without parliamentary backing for these, not only will UK companies be faced with new tariff and non-tariff barriers as high as 87 per cent on frozen beef exports, at least 45 per cent on lamb exports, and 10 per cent on finished vehicles in the car industry, they could also be hit by competition by tariff-free imports of all types of goods from all over the world.

It is no wonder that all the UK's business organisations have called for the Government to rule out 'no deal'. To quote Adam Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce, 'It is time', he said,

'to be honest. Government and its agencies are not prepared for a "no deal" exit on 29 March. Neither are many businesses.'

He goes on:

'The overriding priority must be to assure businesses, employees, investors and communities that an unwanted "no deal" scenario will not be allowed to happen by default on March 29.'

But the motion before us today does more than just call for 'no deal' to be put off. It insists that 'no deal' must be ruled out as an acceptable strategy at any time. Because 'no deal' damage is not only about the risk of short-term chaos at our ports, disruption to supplies of medicines and food, to just-in-time supply chains, not only about overseas healthcare problems for holiday makers, the loss of pet passports or automatic insurance coverage for drivers in the EU, not only about short-term economic shocks, substantial as those may be; the threat of 'no deal' is one of long-term structural damage to our economy. All credible economic analysis shows that there will be major long-term economic damage from a 'no deal' Brexit, with the economy around 10 per cent smaller than otherwise it would be. The scale of this impact is comparable to the kind of fallout we saw following the financial crisis, but this time, incredibly, it'll be the result of a conscious choice by the UK Government. 

And a smaller economy is not about statistics and models and graphs, it is about jobs and livelihoods. People's incomes will also be lower than they would have been—around £2,000 per head in Wales. There will be less tax revenue to fund public services, compounding the effects of the lost decade since the recession. And, if we are driven off a Brexit cliff-edge, we risk the long-term undermining of our economy and a decimation of industry at a scale not seen since the de-industrialisation that we know savaged communities right across Wales in the 1980s.

And this cannot be averted by parliamentary tactics and manoeuvers, as the Prime Minister hopes. It requires leadership. It requires a change of strategy. It is little comfort to avert 'no deal' in three weeks only to be hit with it in three months. And while no-one in the EU will want a 'no deal' outcome, such a scenario will be less damaging to the EU-27 after the European elections than it would be before. So, our demand is for the Government to rule out 'no deal' full stop. And this is urgent. The effects of anticipating 'no deal' are already being felt, with investors pulling out of the UK or cancelling investment plans, and the impacts will get worse every day the uncertainty is allowed to continue. By failing to rule out 'no deal', the UK Government is acting recklessly with the livelihoods of households in every corner of the UK. 

An extension of article 50 is not, on its own, sufficient, but it is necessary to ensure we don't have a 'no deal' Brexit by accident in three weeks' time, and the time to prevent that is now. The EU-27 are clear that, while they would support an extension, the UK Government must give a clear reason for it. Extra time for obfuscation and ambiguity will not persuade our partners and it will not serve the UK. What the Prime Minister must do is clearly signal her intention to take decisive action, either to rewrite the political declaration and make a statutory commitment to the closest possible economic relationship with the EU that is compatible with no longer being a member state—a position that we believe can command a stable majority in the House of Commons and the support of the EU-27—or, failing that, to hold a public vote on the way forward. 

We will not be supporting the UKIP amendment and, for different reasons, we will not be supporting the Plaid amendment. Supporting this motion in no way undermines our position as a party and as a Welsh Government on a referendum. We are on record as a party and a Government as supporting a referendum as a way of resolving this. This motion, however, is drafted in a way that enables us to send a simple and united message between Scotland and Wales that we do not want a 'no deal' Brexit and that the threat must be removed now.