The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Gareth Bennett, and amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Which enables us now to move to the debate on EU withdrawal negotiations, and I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Motion NNDM6985 Rebecca Evans, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Reiterates its opposition to the damaging EU exit deal agreed by the UK Government.

2. Agrees that a no-deal outcome to the current negotiations on EU withdrawal would be completely unacceptable on 29 March 2019 or at any time.

3. Calls on the UK Government to take immediate steps to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal, and further agrees that the Article 50 process should be extended so that agreement can be reached on the best way forward to protect the interests of Wales, Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

Motion moved.

Llywydd, for the first time in 20 years of devolution, two Parliaments—our Parliament here and the Parliament in Scotland—will discuss and vote on the same motion simultaneously. This in itself is significant, but it's more than that. It signals just how grave the threat facing Wales, Scotland and the UK as a whole is, namely that the UK Government has led us to the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit after almost two years of a clueless approach to negotiation. We hope that we and our colleagues in Scotland can send a clear message that we can avoid this threat and that we must do that. 

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. 

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Neil Hamilton 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. Recalls that, before the June 2016 referendum, the UK Government sent to all households in the United Kingdom a booklet stating, under the heading 'A Once in a Generation Decision', 'The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU', but also, 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide'.

2. Believes that an orderly exit from the European Union on 29 March 2019 would be preferable, but resolves that if no deal can be reached between the United Kingdom and European Union, there should be no extension to the Article 50 process, as this would perpetuate uncertainty and betray the democratic will of the people of Wales and the United Kingdom, who voted decisively to leave the EU.

3. Calls on the UK Government and the Welsh Government to accept the likelihood that we will be 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 standing in the name of Gareth Bennett. 

I think the Counsel General was fundamentally misconceived in his speech in treating seriously some of the things that the Prime Minister has said. I don't believe that she has ever wanted a 'no deal'; I don't think she's ever actually wanted to leave the EU in any meaningful sense at all, and all the ricocheting that he described and all the meaningless and vacuous statements that have been eaten as soon as they've been emitted from her mouth are merely ruses to get her through the latest political crisis that her own incompetence has landed her in.

But let's go back to before the referendum in 2016 and look at the document that the Government sent, at our expense, to every single household in the country, this document that conjured up all sorts of horrors of leaving the EU at all, which was designed to try to frighten people into voting in the referendum to stay in. On one page, under the headline, 'Once in a generation decision'—a generation is 25 years—once in a generation referendum, it said this:

'The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.'

And then it says,

'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

The people did decide: they voted to leave the EU, no ifs or buts. There was no prevarication in the question. It was perfectly clear: it was either in or out, and the people voted out. I don't believe that Theresa May actually ever accepted that decision, any more than the Welsh Government accepts it, any more than the Scottish Government accepts it, any more, actually, than 500 remainer MPs in the House of Commons—or the majority of them, at any rate—have accepted that result. And what we have seen in the last two and a half years is a calculated deceit designed not just to undermine the referendum result, but actually to frustrate it altogether.

In the 2017 general election, the Conservative Party manifesto said that,

'under Theresa May's strong and stable leadership, [we] can negotiate the best possible deal for our country....We will make sure we have certainty and clarity over our future, control of our own laws, and a more unified, strengthened United Kingdom...we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union...We want fair, orderly negotiations, minimising disruption and giving as much certainty as possible',  and,

'we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK.'

Yet now we have a so-called 'deal' from Theresa May that, amazingly, decides to keep most of the costs of EU membership whilst junking most of the benefits. It also requires Britain to cede part of its territory, in effect, to a foreign jurisdiction, Northern Ireland, and it allows Brussels to control our commerce with non-EU states even after we have technically left the European Union. We'll have no vote; no veto; no unilateral power to leave if this deal is accepted. It's an insult to those who believe in parliamentary sovereignty; it's an insult to those who believe in the union of the United Kingdom; and it's certainly an insult to anybody who believes in the principle of free trade.

And, of course, the key to all this lies with the attitude in these negotiations of the EU negotiators themselves—Michel Barnier, who said in 2016,

'I'll have done my job if, in the end, the exit terms are so bad that the British would rather stay in the EU.'

So, what we've seen is a pincer movement in the last couple of years of the EU negotiators on the one hand and the British negotiators on the other. The chief negotiator, of course, is a civil servant in both cases: there's no politician in charge of this process because Theresa May has contracted that out. What we have seen is a pincer movement designed on both sides, actually, to achieve the same result, which is, effectively, to keep us inside the EU.

And the various concessions that have been granted to the European Research Group, of course, are pretty meaningless, because they've had to accept that there'll be a continuing role for the ECJ after we leave; they've had to accept that we'll have non-voting membership of the EU, an absurdly one-sided arbitration mechanism that is created, and we'll have to pay over at least £39 billion to the European Union for absolutely nothing. And that's even without the trade agreement that we're supposed to have at the end of this negotiating process.

In article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, now the Treaty of Union, the two-year period was designed to encompass and encapsulate the negotiating for Britain's future trading relationship with the EU. If this deal is accepted, we haven't actually even started that process yet, more than two years after the people decided that we should leave. There is absolutely nothing on the table in exchange for anything that Theresa May has conceded.

The president of the Irish Farmers Association, Joe Healy, said last week that,

'It is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn't be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries'.

That's what this is all about, ultimately: actually tying Britain's arms behind its back in its relationship with countries elsewhere in the world so that we will not be able to take advantage of the freedoms of leaving the EU. And as far as the EU is concerned, the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, quitting the single market for Northern—. The dismemberment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom is the price that we have to pay for our technical leaving.

So, this is, actually, I think, an insult to the British people and to the decision that they made two and a half years ago. Parliament contracted out that decision to the people, and now you, the elected politicians who were put here by them and their votes, are trying to undermine the British people themselves. I can tell you this, that if we do not actually leave the EU, then people's faith in politics and politicians will be at an all-time low, and, in fact, things may get a good deal worse than that.

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:

Believes that the best way forward is for a people’s vote to be held, to enable a democratic choice between the Prime Minister’s EU exit deal and remaining in the EU, and calls on the UK Government to set out its plans to hold such a vote immediately.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I do move the amendment in the name of my fellow Member Rhun ap Iorwerth. We, of course, are co-submitters of the motion tabled by the Government, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our Celtic cousins in Scotland. It is an innovative approach that we should also, perhaps, adopt in future in other contexts. We, of course, agree entirely with what the motion has to say about the deal that the UK Government has brought forward and the damage that that would do in terms of Wales's position, but more than that, the calamity that would emerge from a 'no deal' Brexit in just a few days' time.

But, of course, the reason why we’ve tabled the amendment is that we would have wanted to see the motion going further. One of the lessons that I would suggest to Government is that we should have been included in the negotiations that clearly took place in drawing up this motion. I assume that those negotiations happened in Scotland—or that’s my interpretation of the situation—but they hadn’t happened here. So, it’s difficult for us to participate in the process in that sense and create the kind of unity that the Government wishes to see, unless we are included in those negotiations.

And I think that it is incumbent—. We are in dangerous times in all kinds of senses: 24 days out from what I think most of us would accept is a disaster—a disaster for our economy, but also a disaster for our politics and our political institutions. Trust is at an all-time low. Neil Hamilton is right in this regard, at least—not words I would say very often. But it is a result, of course, of the kind of lies that were at the heart of the referendum campaign and then, subsequently, the complete paralysis that we've seen at Westminster.

And the reason that we propose this amendment is: it's not enough just to say we are opposed to 'no deal'—of course we are—but we cannot either be in a position of tacitly facilitating no progress. So, simply arguing—. Indeed, as the Counsel General himself said, the European Union will expect, of course, any application for an extension to article 50 to be associated with a purpose. We have long come to the conclusion that the only purpose, the only realistic resolution of the situation we find ourselves in, is a people's vote. Because time is now pressing we are in a position where the fierce urgency of now has to dictate what we say and do, and that's the reason why we felt that it was incumbent upon us to lay this amendment down, which, unequivocally, calls for a people's vote. And we, of course, made a tentative step in that direction in January in calling for immediate preparations—this amendment goes further than that because we have to. We have to go further than that because we're running out of time.

I welcome the Damascene conversion that we've seen from the leader of the Labour Party at Westminster in the last few days, but I worry because it seems to me we're always in a position of one step forward, two steps back. So, even today, John McDonnell has been quoted, in response to a question, 'What will you do, in terms of whipping Labour Members at Westminster, crucially, in order to support the policy of a people's vote?' He said that they will be treated with the usual 'good humour and comradeship'. Therefore, there will be no consequences whatsoever, and therein lies—. If this is to be a real commitment, then we, all of us, absolutely have to unite, with just weeks to go, behind the only possible resolution of this issue for our nations.

That is why we do invite Members here—. I understand that maybe the leader of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Labour group are in a different place on this, but in this Parliament, with this additional—it's an 'add' amendment, so we can still have the common text agreed, but let's, actually, in this Parliament say what we all think, I think, in Plaid Cymru and, I think, on the Labour benches as well, and call unequivocally for a people's vote, because that's the only way forward.

Llywydd, Brexit does not have my name on it, but I do accept the authority of the 2016 referendum and I do not believe that you can overturn a referendum. You have to implement it, and then the likes of people in my position can then work to scrutinise it, adapt it and even seek the repeal of that decision—that is how democracies work.

But, I do not underestimate the gravity of our current situation. Hearing Neil Hamilton talk about the dismemberment of the UK being a design of the EU, it is those Brexiteers in the elite who drove us to a situation where two thirds of the people of Scotland voted against secession from the EU and a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland did likewise—the first time in their history that they've made a fundamental constitutional choice in Ulster that was more in line with the Republic of Ireland than the United Kingdom.

I do now need to turn to Mrs May's deal, because I sincerely believe it is the best option, in that it does, to some extent, I think, and certainly of all of the options that are available, to the maximum extent possible, reflect the 2016 referendum result, in that it was won by the 'leave' side but there was a substantial—a very substantial—vote to remain in the EU. Mrs May's deal is a clear Brexit, in that it ensures the UK leaves the economic and political structures of the EU, ends the jurisdiction of the European court and ends freedom of movement. I don't like any of that, I have to say—that's why I was for 'remain'—but it does honour, I think, the intentions of those who did vote 'leave'.

However, Mrs May's deal also recognises that the EU will be our largest economic partner for at least the foreseeable future and we need to seek a comprehensive trade deal. Again, I say to the likes of Mr Hamilton that at this very moment the Chinese and US Governments are negotiating ways of undermining the dispute-resolution mechanism of the World Trade Organization because they do not like its objectivity. That's the world we're going to live in—these huge power blocs pushing their way around, and even medium-sized powers will have to take the best terms they are given. It is not a happy picture.

Mrs May's deal also avoids the hard border between Northern Ireland and the EU whilst technological innovations are found that make an e-border possible. These technological innovations—this e-border—we were told by the likes of Mr Hamilton would be easy to set up. Now, the transition arrangements that they fear will lock us into the EU are because they realise that those technological innovations are still years away, despite your very casual assurances earlier. You have played politics very loosely with the peace process as a result of not taking this aspect of the decision that we took seriously.

In summary, Mrs May's deal is enough of a Brexit to make it coherent and something that can shape our future trading policy to some extent, however limited, and buttress an ongoing relationship with the EU. On that basis, I fully support it.

If I quickly look at the clearest alternatives, a hard Brexit based on WTO rules and possibly then a free trade agreement with the EU, either initially as a 'no deal' Brexit as some sort of managed break, I do accept is coherent. But the shock therapy and the risk attached to it would be very considerable, and it would create real jeopardy for the poorest in society. And we will have no idea what sort of Britain we are creating—a Singapore-on-Thames, as some have described it—but I don't think the people of Blaenau Gwent and Sunderland voted for that.

Norway plus, however conceived, is an option that would keep us in the single market. We would retain an element of the European court's jurisdiction, and we would also make payments into the EU. This has been summarised as EU membership without voting rights, which I'm afraid probably is an accurate description. I do not think that would reflect the 2016 referendum result. We would only nominally leave the EU, and Mrs May's deal is clearly preferable to that.  

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. You've just mentioned the Norway plus model might actually keep us in the European Court of Justice, but it would actually keep us in the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States, rather than the ECJ, and, as such, it will be a different organisation, a different court and different judgments. 

But they do implement the jurisdiction—jurisprudence, rather—of the European court. That's clearly what they do, but there are technicalities, you're right—they meet in partnership in the way you describe but, in effect, it is the EU court that determines things.

As for a second referendum, what would be gained? Would we get a decisive and different result? Well, that's unlikely according to Sir John Curtice, and it would cause great damage to our democracy, and I'm not prepared to risk that. Mrs May's deal does offer an end to the uncertainty that we face. It allows us to go through that door which then permits us to negotiate the actual arrangements of the EU. The irony in all this is that this deal only gets us to the starting plate, really, and we must remember that that work is ahead of us. But her deal does honour the referendum, and it offers a prospect of a constructive future relationship with the EU, which now should be our task, not this unfortunate motion that disparages the EU considerably in calling what we have before us a damaging deal.    

I hadn't planned to speak today as I think I've made my views on Brexit very clear on numerous occasions in this Chamber, including earlier in First Minister's questions, but I have now decided to make a brief contribution. 

I very much welcome the motion that's tabled by my party and by Plaid Cymru today, and which is being debated in tandem with the Scottish Parliament. It is absolutely right that both Parliaments send a clear and unequivocal message to the UK Government that we are united in our opposition to a 'no deal' Brexit. 

I am absolutely clear that a 'no deal' Brexit would be a catastrophe for Torfaen—for our thousands of manufacturing workers, for our public services who depend on staff from our European partners, and for our young people who have had no say on such a fundamental decision that will affect their future, and they will have to live with for years. 

I also, however, plan to vote for the Plaid Cymru amendment on the people's vote today. I understand the reasons why the Welsh Government is not supporting that amendment, but I am personally not prepared to vote against something that I have repeatedly called for inside and outside this Assembly for months. For me, this is a bigger issue than party politics. This is a big issue for our country that will affect our future for years, and I have to vote on my principles on that. For that reason, I will continue to back a people's vote on the Brexit deal. We know that the promises that were made in 2016 cannot be met. It is only fair and democratic now that people are given the final say on something that will affect their lives and their futures for years to come. [Interruption.] They were given a say, David, on something that nobody was clear on. We now know what is a Brexit deal. We now also see very clearly that the best deal we have got is the one that we have got at the moment that gives us all the benefits of EU membership, with an opportunity to reform it from inside, with a seat at the table. That is why I am pushing for a people's vote and why I will be supporting the Plaid amendment today and also the Government motion to send a clear a message to the UK Government on Brexit.

We are now 24 days away from leaving the European Union and we are as far as ever from securing a solution in terms of the way forward from this point. As Adam Price has already said, there is nothing in this motion that we disagree with, but it's a cause of disappointment that the commitment to a people's vote seems to have been dropped by the Labour Party. That's why Plaid Cymru has tabled an amendment calling for the support of this Chamber to make arrangements to hold such a vote as soon as possible.

It is the only way out of this paradoxical impasse whereby we keep hurtling forwards yet make no progress. If we don't have progress on this matter, and soon, it will have been a missed opportunity. 'A missed opportunity'. We use that phrase a lot. So often, in fact, that I think we've lost sight of what it actually means, its sense of urgency, of loss. Over the past two and a half years, opportunities have gone. Positive improvements that might have happened, have not happened. And that, for me, is the crux of Brexit.

In economics, we talk about opportunity cost—that whatever action is taken has a cost in actions not taken. Every area of public spending a Government chooses to allocate money towards means other areas get less. But how do you quantify this opportunity cost: of all the things not done; of prevarication; of promises not delivered; all the reams of legislation; the funding we might have raised; operations that haven't happened; the drugs we haven't been able to purchase; the lives of European friends who might have lived among us; the kinship, friendships and relationships we might have developed with people who either have left these islands or have chosen never to come; the could and would and should; and the might-have-beens that have not been, because Brexit has taken all our attention?

So yes, it will be a missed opportunity if Westminster does not act on the back of this debate and that being held by our Scottish partners. And the cost of that opportunity is more catastrophic than any hackneyed phrases —'missed opportunities'—can ever convey. If threats of no deal were nothing more than a parlour game for the Conservative leadership in Westminster, shame on them. They've cost us more in resources, time, strain and loss of faith and goodwill than can ever be quantified. 

That is why this Parliament should reaffirm today its commitment to holding a people’s vote as soon as is practical. If we don't, we won't have progressed at all, and what signal will that send? We should do that to put this issue to bed once and for all, and so that we can actually begin the work of dealing with the underlying reasons why this vote actually happened, securing economic regeneration and justice for people living in areas that have been left behind by the decisions of consecutive Westminster Governments. Diolch.

I got involved in the EU debate right at the beginning because, for me, the bigger issues were never the economic issues, the trade issues and so on, but it was because of the contribution that the EU had made to European peace and how inconceivable it would've been, when the Soviet Union broke up and those former Warsaw pact countries began to develop democratic systems, inconceivable that that could've happened without major, major warfare and catastrophe had it not been for the fact that there was a body to which they could align themselves that had established various principles of the rule of law and governance.

Of course, nothing was perfect. I've been a critic of the EU in the past because of its diminishing of the social chapter vis-à-vis the corporate interest, but, as Vaclav Havel once said—one of the leaders of the dissident movements from eastern Europe—if you actually want to change an organisation, you have to be part of it and you have to work with other people to do that. What has been really perturbing about not only the development within the UK as a consequence of the referendum, and around other parts of Europe, has been the growth of a far-right nationalism, and an introverted and quite aggressive and unpleasant nationalism that we see being part-funded and supported by people like Putin through social media, through finance, and we see the links between those organisations such as the Golden Dawn, through Le Pen, and through other far-right and fascist organisations. And it is therefore of no surprise whatsoever that we see UKIP now, with people like Tommy Robinson, effectively becoming now a proto-fascist ideological party, because that is what UKIP has now become, and there is no question about that and the alliances they have as part of that introverted far-right agenda. That is what scares me. That is what is really dangerous. 

What is clear now—. [Interruption.] I won't take any message from Neil Hamilton—someone who has been an apologist for apartheid South Africa, an apologist for the fascist regime with Pinochet. It is on record and it is no surprise you find a comfortable home within what is now a proto-fascist party within the United Kingdom.

The big challenges that affect us now over the course of the coming week are going to be the issue of the 'no deal', and in particular article 50 extension, because one thing is clear, and that is that the UK Government cannot even complete the necessary legislative agenda within the time frame that is absolutely left. And any responsible constitutional Government would want to seek that extension to enable that to actually happen. But, for us, there's an even bigger issue, and that is the 'no deal' scenario because of the economic havoc that will be wrought upon Wales and upon much of the UK if there are not arrangements in respect of trade. What do we say to the 20,000 car workers who want to export 95 per cent of their components to the European Union when there are blocks and there are obstacles, and when suddenly their jobs come under threat because of the inability of Government to negotiate a proper trade deal? What do we say to the EU citizens that Theresa May's deal does not protect—those who have given their lives, paid their taxes, and have worked in this country? And what do we also say in respect of all those promises that were made about the protection of workers' rights, which are fundamental to any particular deal? Those promises were made. Many of those people, many of those workers, voted for—[Interruption.] Intervention? Yes.

I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. If you put in the words 'Neil Hamilton' and 'South Africa', the first thing that appears is an article from The Independent in 1998, when he addressed something called the Springbok Club. The record of the meeting says,

'Mr. Hamilton gave a riveting keynote speech in which he recalled his own fond memories of South Africa during the era of civilised rule. He also expressed great pleasure at seeing the true South African flag'— that is, the old flag—

'proudly on display…and expressed the hope that one day it would be seen flying in Cape Town and Pretoria once again.'

That's just one hit; I'm sure there are more to come.

Well, I thank you for that intervention and you've put that point very, very eloquently—

There is another intervention. Are you taking an intervention from Neil Hamilton?

I'll take the intervention, yes.

Those were not my words; those were written by somebody else. I never saw them until they appeared in The Independent and I deny absolutely using the words that have just been used.

I think the point is you don't actually need to have written them, because your apologism for apartheid South Africa, your apologism for the Pinochet regime and the tens of thousands murdered and tortured is absolutely well known and on record.

In respect of the motion today, I think the decision isn't, obviously, going to be taken here, but the solidarity that we can express in terms of our concern across Wales and Scotland in respect of 'no deal' is really important. It may be symbolic, but it is fundamentally important to express that unity at this particular time. So, this motion, which is supported by Welsh Labour, the Welsh Lib Dems, the Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour, the Scottish Green Party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome, because it sends a very, very clear message of unity—a bond of unity that has grown out of a common interest, non-tribal, cross-party, but reflecting the common interest in the fact that we have the well-being of the citizens of Wales very much in our mind in every thing and at every step that we take. I think the amendment is a disappointment because it is a distraction, so I for one will not break that bond of unity that's been established. I will focus, as this motion focuses, on the issue of 'no deal', and I hope we will have as strong support as possible for this particular motion, not just this week but also for the motions that we're going to have next week and the following week. I have absolutely no doubt there will be an extension—

I'm being very patient. You've exhausted my patience now. You've had your time. 

—to article 50 and I reject the UKIP amendment. 

It's a shame that we don't have more solidarity and unity with the people of Wales, who had a people's vote and voted to leave. Yet, instead, we see a Welsh Government that purports to represent and govern for them, palling up with the SNP who want to break up the United Kingdom and where in Scotland—the figure was incorrectly given of two thirds earlier—62 per cent of people in Scotland, like 56 per cent in Northern Ireland, did vote to remain. However, over 53 per cent of people in Wales, as in England, voted to leave in the people's vote we had on 23 June 2016. However, too many politicians in this place and beyond think that they know best and think that people should be made to vote again because they don't agree with them.

Then we have in this motion, point 2:

'Agrees that a no-deal outcome to the current negotiations on EU withdrawal would be completely unacceptable on 29 March 2019 or at any time.'

What that point implies is that we should only leave the European Union if the European Union agrees that we should. Moreover, we should only leave on whatever date they choose and whatever terms they choose we must obey. If you're all prepared to walk away, if there are no circumstances in which you would accept 'no deal', then the corollary of that is you must do precisely as the European Union says in those negotiations, take what you are given, because you can insist on nothing else because you've said beforehand you won't accept 'no deal'.

Will you take an intervention?

We've already had seven minutes from you, Mick, and a lot of it was off topic. So, I won't, if you'll forgive me.

Oh, there we are.

Thank you.

I believed Theresa May when she said that we were leaving the customs union, that we were leaving the single market, that we would be leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I took her at her word too when she said over 100 times, just in the House of Commons, that we would be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. The corollary of that is that if she cannot get a deal that can pass muster with the House of Commons, because it's so poor, because it traps us into a backstop, because according to its political declaration it will build on the single customs territory provided for in the withdrawal agreement—a phrase inserted without the knowledge of the then Brexit Secretary, when we had before a Potemkin department that was supposedly negotiating Brexit, but actually the real negotiations were going on behind their backs—we now get to a situation where that deal cannot get through the Commons, so either we leave with 'no deal' or we extend article 50.

Until last Monday, the position of the United Kingdom Government, the position of the Prime Minister, was that we would leave the EU on 29 March with or without a deal. That unfortunately changed on Monday last week with the Prime Minister's statement. Where 'remain' Ministers write articles attacking the central policy of the Government yet remain Ministers, while 'leave' Ministers who disagree with the Government always have to resign, what does that tell you about where the Prime Minister stands? So, next week, despite the law saying that we leave the EU on 29 March with or without a deal—

There is no law. 

Yes, there is, it's called the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and it was passed by the Westminster Parliament. 

Instead of that, we are having a debate and a vote, organised by the British Government in Government time in the House of Commons, as to whether the House of Commons wants to leave with no deal, and then whether the House of Commons wants to extend article 50, and then the Government says it would be bound by those motion, notwithstanding the law that sets out the position. So, instead of having 17.4 million people who voted 'leave' determine the course of the British Government, it is now suggested that 500 remainer MPs will decide, as we see with this motion, those who have never accepted these results, those who have trotted off to Michel Barnier trying to undermine the position of the UK Government in its negotiations with the European Union—and I give way to one of the foremost amongst them.

I'll take that as a compliment, and I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. Does he not accept that democracy is such that the MPs who sit in the House of Commons now were elected after the referendum and are therefore a better indication of people's desires as to what they want in the future?

Indeed I do, and as with your party, they were elected on coming out of the European Union. Yet now you try and have another vote. You promised you were going to respect the referendum. You said in that manifesto that we would be leaving the European Union, yet now, your MPs in the House of Commons—or too many of them, alas—try and block what they promised they were going to deliver at that referendum, following that referendum, and at the general election. And it is that that is eating away at our democracy, eating away at our country. If we have this motion, and if we say that we will never leave except as the European Union tells us, then that will be an abnegation of democracy, of a referendum that is yet to be implemented, and it is not acceptable—not acceptable to Wales, and not acceptable to the United Kingdom. 

Some weeks ago I was watching a television programme. It was a natural history programme about very curious creatures who live in the arctic, and every now and again they migrate in numbers to various different places, and their migration instinct is so strong that they often fall off the edge of a cliff believing that there is a pathway they can cross—apparently some memory that goes back to the ice age. They're willing to jump off that cliff regardless of the consequences because they believe that they are going somewhere better. What better description could we give to those who are hardline Brexiteers than the name that we give to these creatures, 'lemmings'?

Let's say that they are correct, and let's say that gravity does not exist. Let's say that going off the edge of a cliff is the best way forward. Let's say to people, 'Well, we may not know where we're going, we may not see where we're going, but it'll be better than where we are now.' And where have those political lemmings taken us? Well, 29 March is a date that will see us potentially leave the European Union without a deal. It's not a date written in stone. Nobody voted for 29 March to be the date that we leave. That is a date that has been artificially placed there by the UK Government and could be extended by the UK Government and, indeed, the European Union. So, that 29 March date is not something people voted for. Let's not treat it as some kind of holy writ, because it isn't.

And if we look at 2016, I cannot remember—[Interruption.]. Of course.

I think we're talking about our democratic culture here and what most people think. These are axial times. It will determine how people think, and most people, I think nearly everyone who voted for Brexit, thought we'd be out a long time before now. That's the reality. I don't like that, but we've had a long time to make a decision, and alas, that's what really is damaging us at the moment. 

I very much respect, of course, the Member and his views, but I have to say, I saw the way that the Conservative Government operated from 2016 onwards, as did others in the current Government. David Davis, as far as I can see, did absolutely nothing for a year and a half. Absolutely nothing. Boris Johnson: nothing for a year and a half, apart from the odd quip now and again. A lot of time was lost, and I pay tribute to the attitude taken by people like David Lidington and Greg Clark. I may have my political differences with them, but they are far more pragmatic, and far easier to talk to, than David Davis and Boris Johnson ever were, and they actually do things, which the other two did not. 

In 2016 I don't recall any Member in this Chamber or indeed anybody campaigning in the Brexit campaign, on one side or the other, campaigning in favour of a 'no deal'. Nobody campaigned in favour of a 'no deal'. Everybody said on the Brexit side, 'There'll be a free trade deal. It'll be the easiest deal in history. German car manufacturers will step in. They'll force Germany and the EU to come to an agreement with the UK. We'll have 70 free trade agreements replicated, all ready to go by the time we leave.' None of this was true. Liam Fox said to me, 'We'll just replicate the free trade agreements that the EU has with other countries.' That hasn't happened. The Japanese said, 'You must be joking. Why would we have an agreement with you, who are eight times smaller than the European market, on the same terms as the European market?' Nobody campaigned for 'no deal'. 

And there are those, of course, who said that we'll have a deal with the US. Well, those of you who will have read the US's opening gambit for a free trade deal will understand that the US free trade deal involves access to the UK market for American companies but not the other way around, a lowering of our food standards, a lowering of our hygiene standards, a lowering of our regulations to allow American goods in and the ability of the US Government to have a say in the way that our currency operates. So, we exchange what Brexiteers say is EU control for US control, and that is not acceptable. But that is the reality of a free trade deal when you are a medium-sized country, rather than in a big bloc. The more of you there are, the more power you have.

No doubt there will be some who will say I'm arguing against Brexit, I'm not; I'm arguing against 'no deal'. There will be some who will say this is all about project fear—Honda: that's project fear, 3,500 jobs. Nissan: project fear; that's not going to happen, is it? Ford saying the same thing. BMW today saying they may have to move Mini production out of—[Interruption.] In a second. Out of the UK. Are these companies bluffing? Are these companies bluffing when they say they will leave the UK if there is no deal?

Of course, David. 

All those companies said exactly the same thing about whether we went into the euro or did not go into the euro. Every single one of the companies you just said. Now, you know and I know that there's more investment going in to Nissan. They're building the Corolla, which is the biggest selling car. They've just invested that sort of money. Those companies are not going to come out of the UK. 

Honda have said they're closing in Swindon—3,500 jobs. Of course they said they're going to leave. BMW has said it today. Unless you're saying that all those employers are lying, then somehow we are not to take any notice of what they say and it's all smoke and mirrors. Why would you stay in the UK when your market is Europe? Why wouldn't you just manufacture in Europe instead and treat the UK as a much smaller market, because the economy is not that big compared to the EU?

I know I'm running out of time, but I've taken some interventions, Llywydd. 

There are some who say we should have no deal. Have we noticed that those who are the strongest advocates of no deal are rich men? They are rich men. They are James Dyson, they are Jacob Rees-Mogg, they are people like Boris Johnson. They are people who can move their assets out of the UK—and have started doing so—if they think the UK is in trouble. They are the people with the money to go and live somewhere else. They are the people who argue for an unregulated free market economy that people certainly didn't vote for, particularly and not exclusively, in Blaenau Gwent. These are people, some of them, who argue that a deregulated economy is best: a Singapore in the north Atlantic, forgetting of course there would be no workers' rights, no regulations and human beings would simply be bystanders to an unregulated liberal free market economy—a form of economic totalitarianism, frankly, in my view. 

Finally, Llywydd, could I say this: let's send the message out today from here that this debate is not about Brexit, it's about no deal. Let's have a situation where we can sit down and say to each other, regardless of our views on Brexit, that what happens in the future should be governed by sense not speed, by a deal not disaster, and by agreement rather than staring into the abyss. No deal is no good for Wales. 

How can I follow that? 

And you're not getting more time today, even though you're the Chair. [Laughter.]

We can negotiate that. [Laughter.]

Llywydd, what we've heard today is clearly what we've heard before, and Carwyn Jones, the Member for Bridgend, is quite right: this discussion is about a 'no deal' Brexit, and we forget that sometimes. And it's been quoted today by several people who always vote for Brexit that the Labour Party manifesto in 2017 was about actually honouring that referendum result, and I'll quote it, just to remind them of a few things. 

'Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers' rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.'

It also says that it would scrap the Brexit White Paper 

'and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union'. 

Now, before anyone says what went into the manifesto, they are things the UK Labour Party has put to this Government—the five points Jeremy Corbyn put to the Government and the Prime Minister. That's what it says. So, what we are simply repeating, by the way—. Before anyone says we're reneging on it, we are delivering on the Labour Party manifesto of 2017 and putting the interests of the nation before the interests of a party, which is what the UK Government is currently doing. Let's make that quite clear now.

And when we talk about going out with no deal, we are talking about WTO rules, and if anyone here supports it, I gave the offer last time of telling me where WTO rules are better for Wales than what we currently have. Neil Hamilton intervened. He didn't give me an example. He just tried to defend his arguments. If anyone wants to intervene again and give me a single example of where WTO is better for Wales than what we've got, please do so now, I'll take it. Again, no contenders. So, clearly, everyone recognises WTO is not in the best interest of—[Interruption.]

Will the Member give way?

No problem. Thank you. 

The example I would mention is the beef sector. We were told before of a tariff of 87 per cent, but, of course, if we were to have those types of tariffs, there would be a vast opportunity for Welsh farmers to displace some of the dominant Irish beef that comes into our market currently way above world market prices. 

I'll respond to that. Irish beef you mentioned: you didn't mention Argentinean beef; you didn't mention Brazilian beef; you didn't mention US beef. It is damaging to the Welsh economy and those markets will not be open to us under WTO rules. So, it's quite clear no one has yet given indication that WTO rules would be better for the Welsh sectors.

Now, that is crucial when we talk about 'no deal' Brexit, because we talk about the economy of our nation. We're talking about the livelihoods of our citizens; we're talking about the lives of our constituents. That is what 'no deal' will damage. It's been quite rightly pointed out that many who promoted from the high levels Brexit have moved their businesses abroad, have moved their investments abroad. My constituents can't do that. They live day to day in my constituency. Steel: we talk about cars. Well, steel actually delivers the raw material for the car making. Now, steel itself may not have the tariffs put upon it, but the products they sell to do have tariffs on them and that will impact upon the steel industry. The steel industry, therefore, will suffer serious implications. That means thousands of jobs in Wales, plus the supply chain. That is going to damage our economy. Now, if anyone wants to vote for a 'no deal' and damage the economy, please be honest with the people and tell them, 'I'm voting for damaging the economy.' No-one's saying that, and it's about time people were honest and said that that's what they want. If you don't want it, then oppose a 'no deal' Brexit, because that is the only way we can secure our economy to be stronger. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes. 

Your argument brings us on to, really, one of the big arguments that's been put by the Brexiteers, and that is, 'Well, of course, what we really want is a fantastic trade deal with America.' Have you yet started to acquire a wonderful taste for chlorinated chicken?

I thank the Member for the intervention. The Member for Bridgend highlighted some of the issues with the US that he's already talked about, chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, there's already one there. We know—and let's be honest ourselves—Donald Trump has said, 'America first'. Any trade deal will be 'America first', and it's quite right, as a single nation, we will have less bargaining power than as a block, and we will be suffering. And Liam Fox, unfortunately, has not stood up to the US yet to say that is not acceptable. He seems to be wishing for a deal to just simply save his face.

Now, whilst we're also talking about this, we talk about a lot of views, but the committee has actually met and taken evidence from nations across Europe, nations outside of the EU. The evidence and discussions we've had, everybody—everybody—has told us 'no deal' would be catastrophic. They accept it will be catastrophic for the EU, but they also say it will be worse for the UK, and that is the crucial aspect. We are ignoring the implications for our people if we accept 'no deal'. This motion says, 'It's not acceptable. We're not prepared to put that pressure upon our people.' And we should respect that position. That's not rejecting Brexit: that is simply saying, 'We are standing up for the people of Wales', and I can see the Llywydd nodding, so I'll end on that. 

Like many people, I must say, I've found the last few years deeply, deeply depressing. I think Brexit has not enhanced our democracy, David: it's broken our democracy. It's broken our politics, and the crashing irony is that for many of those old-fashioned imperialists who see an imperial future for Britain, I believe that Brexit has also broken Britain. I believe it has broken the solidarity of communities. It's broken the people we are, and it's broken the people we could have been. We walked around the chancelleries of Brussels some weeks ago, and we heard time and time again that the United Kingdom was—in the First Minister's words—tarnished. Its reputation was less than it was and less than it could have been. Where Britain has led in the past, it is running away in the present. And it isn't running away as a United Kingdom, it's running away as a broken community and a broken society.

Let me tell you this—and you listen, David. You listen. I've been in this place for about 13 years and it's only since that band of warriors in the corner were elected that I've heard people in this country differentiated—the word 'foreigners' used in our debates, the word 'immigrants' used to define people contributing to our society. The words used to attack people who make our society better, and I bitterly, bitterly regret it. And let me tell Neil Hamilton—he'll learn this in Newport next month—democracy didn't end in June 2016, and democracy doesn't mean that you're unable to pursue what you believe in, what you hold dear. If you had lost that referendum, you would still campaign to leave the European Union. And I will still campaign not to leave the European Union. And in doing so, I don't decry the referendum or the right of people to vote to leave, but I campaign for what I believe in. I believe in a different version of society, a different view of who we can be. I believe in this country and I believe in our people. And I believe in our democracy, and what we've seen over these last few years has been the breaking of Britain and the breaking of British democracy, and we've seen that in each one of our parties.

Let me also say this: there's no sovereignty in a food bank; there's no sovereignty living if you haven't got a living wage coming in; there's no sovereignty if you don't know when the next wage packet turns up; and there's no sovereignty when the future of your job and your family is determined in the capitals of the world where your own politicians are unable to influence. I'll give way to Mark Reckless.

Thank you. I was in the meetings with those chancelleries in Brussels and heard the Member apologising for our country to those people. And I just wonder: is there any sovereignty for people in Blaenau Gwent who voted to leave the European Union by more than any other constituency in Wales who are being ignored by their AM?

Mark, I'm one of those people; I'm one of them. You're a visitor.

You're the minority.

You're a visitor.

You're the minority. I'm the majority, you're the minority.

You are a visitor to my community—[Interruption.] You're a visitor—not a very regular one, but a visitor. And let me say this—[Interruption.] No, I won't give way again. I won't give way. Let me say this—[Interruption.] We rarely see you, Mark. That's just a reality, it's not a critical analysis; we just don't see you.

Let me say this: what is ripping apart Blaenau Gwent, and what is ripping apart families and lives in Blaenau Gwent? It's austerity, a process you voted for and a process that he doesn't think has gone far enough. Let me tell you this: austerity is at the root of what led the people of Blaenau Gwent to vote for Brexit. Austerity is at the root of what is breaking this country and austerity is at the root of what has driven these communities apart and into conflict.

And let me say this, Presiding Officer, you've been very generous, I won't be voting for the Plaid Cymru amendment today because I don't believe we should be playing those sorts of politics this afternoon. I believe that we should be showing unity with our friends in Scotland. We won't on Saturday, but we will today. And we should demonstrate that we can rise above the temptation to play those games and to vote for the bigger picture and the bigger vision, and to tell the United Kingdom Government that you can walk down the great corridors of Westminster, but if you really want to represent the people of this country, you've got to do more than simply polish up your badges and polish up your speeches. You've got to listen to what the people are saying.

First Minister, I hope—[Interruption.] I hope that we will be able to extend article 50, to call a referendum, and in that referendum, renew our democracy and challenge the snake-oil salesmen we see in this Chamber, the snake-oil salesman who we've seen who sold their lies to the people of this country, challenge them and put them in their place and tell the people of Wales that this is our democracy and you are not going to steal it from us.

The First Minister to reply to the debate.

Llywydd, diolch yn fawr. And thank you to all Members who've taken part in what I think has been an excellent and passionate debate. Brexit has been an engine for constitutional innovation. This afternoon, for the first time, we are jointly, in our different places, debating with the Scottish Parliament on an identical motion placed by the two Governments before the two Parliaments. We're doing that for a very important reason, because by acting uniquely in this way, we hope that our votes tonight will put further pressure on the Prime Minister to do the right thing, to live up to the responsibilities that have been placed in her hands and to act in a way that defends the interests of families and working people in Scotland and in Wales.

In recent months, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have been clear that 'no deal' would be a catastrophic outcome. And as Members have made it clear here this afternoon, that's the proposition that we are debating this afternoon—that is the possibility that we are united in our calls, in Scotland and in Wales, to say to the UK Government to take decisive action to ensure that 'no deal' cannot be the way in which we leave the European Union.

I made a joint statement with the First Minister of Scotland last month. We called on the Prime Minister to take 'no deal' off the table and seek an immediate extension to the article 50 process. Members in this Chamber said, when we debated it on 7 February, that there was no time to waste, but the Prime Minister has done exactly that—she has relied on a tactic of running down the clock to force a choice between her damaging deal and no deal. She has succeeded in persuading even as reasonable an individual as David Melding that that is the choice that we face, but it's not the choice, Llywydd—it's not the choice that we have to face. It is not a choice that whole swathes of Mrs May's own Cabinet are prepared to take—they don't believe that her deal is the best deal and neither do we. 

Now, the Prime Minister says that keeping 'no deal' on the table strengthens her hand in the negotiations. How she is able to cling to that outdated and failed proposition is a matter of amazement to many, and it is certainly not the case that it is doing us any good now. Jeremy Miles, in opening the debate, said that I had been in Brussels and in Paris last week holding St David's Day events on behalf of Wales. I was taken aback by the extent to which people who are friends of the United Kingdom said to me that the Prime Minister's decision to vote for the Brady amendment had punctured whatever credibility she still had. Here was a Prime Minister who struck a deal—who struck a deal—with the European Union and then was prepared to vote against the deal that she herself had struck. Any sense that keeping 'no deal' on the table is somehow strengthening her hand in those circumstances bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation at all.

What is real is that the risk of no deal strengthens. We heard the true voice of 'no deal' Brexit in the Chamber here this afternoon. For Mark Reckless, the decision of people in a referendum in 2016 is so absolute that he would, as Carwyn Jones said, be happy to take us off a cliff in the dark and without a torch.

I apologise to the First Minister for intervening, but there is one point that has disturbed me—something that Mark Reckless said, which surprised me, I have to say, when he said that we should have the opportunity to impose large tariffs on Irish beef. If that is the case, that means tariffs between the UK and Ireland, it means customs, it means a hard border, it means the ending of the Good Friday agreement and the jeopardising of peace on our neighbouring island. Do you agree that that is not a price that is anything remotely worth paying in order to get Brexit through?

I absolutely, Llywydd, agree with what the Member for Bridgend has said. And it is in the recklessness of that sort of proposition that you see what a 'no deal' Brexit would mean: it's carelessness about peace on the island of Ireland; it's willingness to sacrifice whole swathes of the Welsh economy in pursuit of that ideological—

Would he give way?

I think you advised another Member of the number of times that they had spoken in the debate and I think considerably more latitude—

You can't allow that to be said about me and not give me a chance.

—has been allowed there. Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] The Member can shout at me from a standing position, but I'm not doing anything to appease him in this debate.

Instead, Llywydd, I agree absolutely with what my colleague Alun Davies said. Democracy is the right to disagree; it is the right to be in a minority and to continue to argue for your cause; it is the opposite of the absolutist view that, in one single vote, the winner takes all and the winner holds all in perpetuity. That is the negation of democracy, but it is—

Will the First Minister give way?

—but it is that absolutist view that means that, in the hands of those who hold those views, we are heading to that cliff, and that cliff-edge only 24 days away from now.

Llywydd, as you have heard, the Government will vote against the Plaid Cymru amendment, not because of the arguments made in favour of it, but because I believe it puts tactics ahead of strategy. The strategic game today is for parties on the progressive left of politics in Wales and in Scotland to vote together in favour of propositions that have already been endorsed here in this Assembly and that become more urgent with every single day. The force of that argument will be significantly strengthened by the endorsement of an identical motion in both Parliaments. That's why we will vote against the Plaid Cymru amendment, because, were it to pass, it would dilute the impact of parliamentary unanimity. It would be used by the Conservative Government to suggest that Wales and Scotland are, after all, not united behind the propositions put in front of the two Parliaments by two very different Governments but Governments of one mind on the matters put before Members here today.

I agree with Lynne Neagle that we need to be clear and we need to be unequivocal. That's why we must not vote for an amendment that introduces equivocation between this National Assembly and the vote that will be held in the Scottish Parliament. I agree with Alun Davies that this is our opportunity to demonstrate a solidarity in the face of a threat that otherwise has the danger of a broken Britain. In Scotland, opposition parties with every bit as much of a belief in a second referendum as Plaid Cymru have been willing to make those points in the debate but not to seek to obscure the force of a single motion through amendment.

Here is what my colleague Richard Leonard said in that debate, when he talked about the path that Mrs May has followed, and said then that, when she fails, then there is no choice but to go back to the people in a public vote, with a credible 'leave' option as well as a remain option on the ballot paper. It's not because we disagree with the sentiments, but because we want to send one single united message on these matters from this Parliament and from the Scottish Parliament too.

Will the First Minister give way? Did the leader of the Scottish Labour Party also not say that his preference is for a revised deal? And is that the position of the Welsh Labour Party?

Well, the position of the Welsh Labour Party is the position that our party and his party signed up to together. That's the position. It is not such an incredible matter that the Plaid Cymru leader wants to shake his head at me, at a set of propositions that his party signed up to in this Assembly when he set out—

Will the First Minister give way?

Yes, will do. One more time.

The question that was put to the leader of the Labour Party was: what is his preference—for a people's vote or for a revised deal? He said a revised deal. We're clear that our preference is for a people's vote. What's your position?

My position is the position that your party and my party signed up to together. That's my position. Now, it's not your position, because you moved away from that position, but my position is that there was a deal to be done, a deal that would have protected the Welsh economy and jobs. It's a deal that you signed up to—your party signed up to it. It may not suit you now, but it suited you then. Today you've changed your mind. That's fine—I don't mind that at all. 

It's called democracy—[Inaudible.]

Absolutely it's called democracy, and you're entitled to change your mind. What you're not entitled to do is to suggest that somehow the position that we take, which was the position you took, is somehow not to be supported. The position I take is the position I've said time after time, Llywydd, and it's why we won't vote for his amendment, because, actually, in the end, what he is interested in is this sort of petty political point scoring—this sort of tactical nonsense that he indulges in here on the floor of the Assembly. My position is this: let a deal be done. If a deal can't be done, then it has to go back to the people—then we're in favour of a people's vote. That's the position we support. I say it again: I've got no difficulty with it whatsoever.

Llywydd, let me move to a close by quoting what my colleague the Scottish First Minister said about today's debate. She said:

'It is worth emphasising that this is the first occasion in 20 years of devolution when the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have acted in unison in this way. We have been brought together by our dismay—which borders now on despair—at the United Kingdom Government’s approach to...Brexit.'

The motion provides the basis, even at this late hour, for a more sensible and less damaging approach. By doing so, it allows us to act in the interests not just of our own constituents but of the UK as a whole—indeed, of Europe as a whole. 'I commend it', Nicola Sturgeon said, 'I commend it'. I hope that Members, both of the Scottish Parliament and our friends in the Assembly, will vote for it this evening. Llywydd, I commend it too. I agree with Delyth Jewell: this is not a parlour game. Let us speak with one voice on one common proposition, and, as the UK Government moves to a set of decisive votes next week, let us leave no-one in any doubt of the views of Scotland and of Wales. Vote for the proposition put by this Government in front of this Assembly, by the Scottish Government in front of the Scottish Parliament, and let us speak in that common voice and in a common cause, because that is the way in which we will maximise our influence and put that pressure we need to bring on the Prime Minister to do the right thing and to ensure that the interests of our people are put at the heart of the deal that she will strike with the European Union.

In accordance with Standing Order 11.15, the Government decided that a vote must be taken on this item, and so I defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.