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 How she is able to cling to that outdated and failed proposition is a matter of amazement to many, and it is certainly not the case that it is doing us any good now.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.