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.