Item 3 on the agenda is a statement by the First Minister on an update on the EU negotiations, and I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last week saw another opportunity for the UK Government to take meaningful steps to avoid the disaster of a 'no deal' Brexit. Either the Prime Minister would succeed in getting her deal through the Parliament, clearing the way for a brief extension to article 50 to pass the necessary legislation, or Parliament would instruct her to ask the European Council for an article 50 extension in any case. A series of parliamentary votes would give the UK Government an opportunity to put an end to the uncertainty damaging our economy, and impacting the lives of communities across the UK and abroad.

But, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will reach the end of the week having made no progress at all. Despite the expressed view of the House of Commons, the UK Government hasn’t requested an extension as of yet, or hasn’t said publicly that leaving without a deal is off the table. The disastrous failure of the Prime Minister’s deal for the second time confirms what we have known from the outset. The Democratic Unionist Party and the European Research Group are the very groups who want to see a 'no deal' Brexit, and relying on them to vote in favour of an agreement that doesn’t satisfy them, and doesn’t satisfy those of us who want to minimise the economic damage of Brexit, was utterly absurd.

The only thing that the Prime Minister succeeded in doing last week was to further damage our country’s interests, and make it more likely that we will leave without an agreement on 29 March.

Last week, Dirprwy Lywydd, we witnessed the contrived drama of Mrs May’s last-minute dash to Strasbourg to hail a new set of recycled commitments from the EU-27. These commitments were already implicit or explicit in the withdrawal agreement agreed in November and which the Prime Minister reneged on in January. We then looked on in amazement as she failed to secure the endorsement of her own law officer for the claims that she had made.

And, by demonstrating the truth—that the EU-27 had done all they could to make the deal acceptable without abandoning the EU principles of solidarity between member states and respect for the single market—the Prime Minister has helped the EU-27 show that any irretrievable breakdown of these negotiations is down to the political mismanagement of the Tory Government.

The result is that we are now at the cliff edge. There is no guarantee that the Prime Minister’s blackmail Brexit will pay off. If, as now seems likely, she asks for the article 50 extension without any clear plan, it is by no means certain that the EU-27 will achieve the unanimity necessary to agree it. If they do, they may set conditions, including the requirement to hold European elections in two months’ time, which the UK Government in turn may refuse.

And, even if an extension is agreed, we will be in unknown territory. Far too often in this process, Dirprwy Lywydd, the myopic little Englanders of the Brexit movement forget that there are two Parliaments that have to ratify any deal. The European Parliament has to vote on it by 18 April—its last plenary session before its election—or the process will need to start with a new and potentially very different European Parliament later in the year.

Now, even without the intervention of the Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday, it was clear that the Prime Minister had run out of road. By the third day of votes last week, her Cabinet had splintered. The Brexit Secretary closed the debate by putting forward the motion for the extension and urging MPs not to vote as he himself intended, alongside five other Cabinet Ministers.

The Secretary of State for Wales took the precaution of voting twice: once for, and once against the motion in the name of his own Prime Minister. That motion was only passed with the votes of the opposition. We have a Government that continues to suffer defeat after defeat, a Cabinet as divided as ever, and a Prime Minister unable to unite her own party, and certainly not the nation. On the single most important issue for that Government, there is no leadership, no collective responsibility and no control. 

Surely, Dirprwy Lywydd, the moment has arrived when the Government, with or without the Prime Minister, has to change course to build a cross-party consensus—not to try to peel off a handful of rebels and malcontents, but by securing the support of party leaders from across the House of Commons—and to make that the basis on which we seek an extension to article 50.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, this will not happen if the Government and the bulk of Tory MPs are painted into a corner by the Prime Minister’s red lines: 'no' to the single market; 'no' to a customs union; 'no' to a sensible approach to migration. The disastrous strategy set out in her Lancaster House speech is being played out to its disastrous conclusion. We have worked hard to prepare Wales for the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit, but there is only so much we can do to mitigate what would be an unmitigated disaster for Wales.

We continue to represent our national interest at every opportunity. Vaughan Gething last week attended the first four nations ministerial health meeting. We have held meetings this week of our own Cabinet and our own Cabinet sub-committee on EU transition. The Counsel General and Brexit Minister will be speaking to David Lidington this afternoon, having met MEPs in Strasbourg last week.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I’ve made clear repeatedly in this Chamber, in our view, there are two ways in which progress could be made. We continue to advocate the policy we have taken ever since the referendum: a form of Brexit that puts the economic interests of our country ahead of political posturing and grandstanding, and which puts jobs before grandiloquent but empty phrases about taking control of our money, our borders and our laws. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, not only is our plan right in principle, but we believe it is deliverable in practice. Renegotiating the political declaration in this fashion, by committing to participation in a customs union and the single market, together with dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union, would be welcomed, as we know, by the EU27 and, we believe, could be achieved quickly and outside the withdrawal agreement itself.

Last week, this Welsh Government published draft clauses to show how such changes could be anchored in primary legislation—another example of Wales injecting creative solutions into an otherwise deadlocked process. That deadlock, Dirprwy Lywydd, is the product of the toxic mixture of incompetence and intransigence that has become the hallmark of the UK Government. It is because it is so difficult to have faith in its ability to secure an orderly Brexit that we continue to support a second public vote if that deadlock cannot otherwise be broken. That is the position we have set out in this Chamber, and I repeat it again today, but no-one, as we know, should assume that it would be straightforward.

A second vote is a proposition that is yet to secure a majority in the House of Commons. It would require a longer extension than 30 June, with all that it implies for European elections. And a second referendum campaign would be fought in a way that would inevitably be divisive. But let me reiterate again: if the House of Commons decides that a public vote is the way through the morass that has been created, then the Welsh Government will support that course of action.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we stand on the very precipice of the cliff. With just 10 days before we are due to leave the European Union, there is no deal, and there is very little sign from the Prime Minister of a willingness or a plan to find a new deal. Let her change course. Let her put the needs of the country before those of her fractured party. Let her reach out to others who are willing to help, and let her do it before it is all too late.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon?

It is with regret that, for some politicians, across all parties, the process of leaving the European Union has been used as a political football, and I'm disappointed that the First Minister has chosen to contribute to this through his consistent opposition to anything and everything the UK Government has done to break the deadlock. I'm sure many people across the UK feel great frustration that with so little time before we leave the EU, the constant to-ing and fro-ing continues to dominate the political landscape. And I had hoped that at least in this institution, the people of Wales could be sure of a mature debate on what is quite simply the biggest issue facing us as Assembly Members. Therefore, my first question to the First Minister is to ask what immediate discussions he's had with both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition at Westminster to ensure that the transition away from the European Union is dealt with robustly, fairly and without the need for political point scoring.

As the First Minister is aware, last week MPs voted to grant an extension to article 50. Of course, the length of that extension will depend on whether the Prime Minister's current deal is finally approved by Westminster. The First Minister is fully aware that I've supported the Prime Minister's deal because I believe it will respect the result of the referendum, but it would also ensure that our businesses will be able to continue trading on a reciprocal basis with the European Union. However, if the deal is finally approved, then of course article 50 will have to be extended in order to get the legislation through. Perhaps the First Minister could tell us what representations he has made regarding the extension of article 50. However, I have to tell the First Minister that I think it will be unacceptable to the people and businesses of Wales for the First Minister to encourage the extension of article 50 past June, aggravating the frustration and adding the distraction of the European elections to the Brexit process. Many people will question the relevance of these elections to an institution we are due to and will be leaving.

The First Minister has just said in his statement that taking control of our money, our border and our laws is an empty phrase, but this is exactly what the British and Welsh people voted for, and it is this that the Prime Minister is trying to deliver on. However, I am very pleased that the First Minister wants to see dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union, but the Prime Minister has pipped him to it, and has committed to strengthening them once we actually leave the European Union.

I agree with the First Minister that it's of critical importance that absolutely everything is done to mitigate the impact of leaving without a deal, particularly for Welsh businesses, many of whom are heavily integrated in European markets. The First Minister will be all too aware of the severe impact that EU tariffs coupled with a potential 'no deal' Brexit scenario could have on many smaller producers and supply chains across Welsh industry, especially Welsh hill farmers, who will be hit by higher tariffs. With little time on our hands, perhaps the First Minister could update us on what emergency discussions he has had and is having with Welsh business leaders.

As I've said before in this Chamber, I'm keen to constructively work with the Welsh Government where I can in order to best protect Wales's interests, and I want to reiterate that commitment this afternoon. Of course, the critical events in recent weeks could have a serious effect on the UK's ability to develop international trade deals, which will be crucial in helping to develop the Welsh economy post Brexit, as would the First Minister's party's wish to bind us in the EU customs union—the very definition of which denies us the ability to have a say in trade deals. When the First Minister formed his Government, he was quick to establish a Minister with direct responsibility for Brexit, and a Minister with direct responsibility for international trade. In light of those appointments, can the First Minister tell us what official guidance and assessments he's received from both departments on the impact of leaving the European Union, and Wales's ability to be involved in trade deals internationally in the future? Perhaps he could also confirm what work the Welsh Government has already undertaken to develop its own international trade strategy, so that Wales can hit the ground running once we leave the European Union and work with the UK Government's Department for International Trade.

Deputy Presiding Officer, Wales and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom is in unchartered territory. It's important that we do not lose sight of what's important here, and that's respecting the 2016 referendum result and ensuring the smoothest possible transition away from the European Union. In the past, the First Minister has shared my concerns over the constitutional character of the UK post Brexit, and Wales's place in that. Therefore, perhaps in response to my questions this afternoon he will also take the opportunity to update Members on the Welsh Government's assessment of the impact of Brexit on Wales in a constitutional context.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we on this side of the Chamber will work where we can with others to protect Wales's interests, both nationally and internationally. I look forward to hearing more about the Welsh Government's plans for Welsh industry post Brexit and I hope that the First Minister will now work constructively with the UK Government in the coming days and the coming weeks.

I thank the Member for a series of important questions. I want to refute what he said at the very beginning, because the Welsh Government certainly has not taken the view of being opposed to anything and everything that the UK Government has attempted in this field. We gave a modest welcome to the Florence speech, when the Prime Minister began to move back from the red lines that she'd set out in her Lancaster House speech. We gave a modest welcome to her Chequers plan. The problem that the Prime Minister has had has not been with the Welsh Government over that matter; it has been her difficulties in securing support from within her own party. How many Cabinet Ministers walked away from her Government as a result of the Chequers plan? And how many has she continued to lose on almost a weekly basis ever since? Where the UK Government has moved in our direction, we have sought to welcome that and to encourage them to do so. In the end, it has always been the Prime Minister's instance that her most import audience are those who sit behind her and who are irreconcilable to her plan that has been her undoing.

The Member asks when I last spoke to the Prime Minister; I spoke to her last week. I met the leader of the opposition just before the start of this half term, and I've discussed with them both. I'm very pleased to see this afternoon that the leader of the opposition is meeting party leaders in the House of Commons to try to do what the Prime Minister should have been doing now for many weeks, which is to reach out to other parties to find a different centre of gravity in the House of Commons where a deal could have been done.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I take absolutely at face value what the leader of the opposition says about wanting to play a constructive part himself, and I hope that he will use his position as leader of the Conservative Party in Wales to put the views that are so important on behalf of Wales to the Prime Minister herself, because I agreed with what he said about the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit in tariffs and non-tariff consequences on the Welsh economy, on our manufacturing sector, on our agricultural sector. Those are major, major difficulties that lie in our path should a 'no deal' Brexit take place, and any words that get into the ear of the Prime Minister about those difficulties are welcome.

The Member asked what we are doing to make sure that we are in touch with Welsh businesses. Well, we continue to encourage Welsh businesses to use the Brexit portal that we have established—30,000 visits to that. But it's one thing to visit the portal, it's another thing to take its advice and to do the diagnostic work that companies need to do to prepare themselves for the challenges that lie ahead. We are using our EU transition fund to continue to support businesses and other sectors in the Welsh economy to prepare for that world.

What we won't be able to do, Dirprwy Lywydd, is to indulge in the fantasy that exists among Conservative politicians that the world is simply waiting for a buccaneering Britain, that when we turn our back on our closest and most important market, that that will be replaced by these deals that are to be struck all around the world. There is no evidence for that at all. The Member knows perfectly well that the deals we already enjoy through our membership of the European Union are being denied to us the other side of the European Union. Far from having more trade deals around the world, we will start with far fewer than we have as a result of our EU membership.

Let me end with the very important final point that the leader of the opposition raised: the constitutional character of the United Kingdom the other side of Brexit. This is an issue on which my predecessor, the Member for Bridgend, has played a leading part across the United Kingdom, in trying to concentrate the minds of others on forming those ways of working inside the United Kingdom that will be necessary for it to go on operating successfully once we leave the European Union. Work was set in hand by Carwyn Jones and the First Minister of Scotland and the Prime Minister at a meeting of the JMC plenary in March of last year. That work is yet to be completed, and it is very difficult indeed to find people in the UK Government with the interest or the energy to work on that agenda when they are so overwhelmed by the difficulties that Brexit has created. But we continue to work on it, we continue to work on it with colleagues in Scotland, and we look forward to returning to that JMC plenary with a comprehensive report on all the different work strands that were agreed, because on them depends the orderly conduct of business across the United Kingdom when the European Union is no longer there.

First Minister, my colleagues at Westminster are meeting with Jeremy Corbyn as we speak, in order to explore cross-party co-operation in achieving, even at this late stage, a collaborative approach. We hope greater clarity will emerge about Labour's real position on Brexit. Last week, BBC Wales reported that a senior source inside the Welsh Labour Party—who may or may not be sitting, who knows, on your frontbenches—said that your lack of clarity over a people's vote was causing tensions in your Cabinet. They called your policy unsustainable and confusing. Your own AM—Torfaen's Lynne Neagle—described your position as ridiculous and unconvincing. Now, in your statement today, you said a second referendum would be divisive, possibly indecisive, though you would support it subsequently, if the House of Commons did first. It's difficult to conceive of a weaker endorsement of the case for a second referendum. You're rowing further and further away, First Minister, from the policy that we endorsed in this place in January, so much so that, if, miraculously, Jeremy Corbyn u-turns again, adopts a policy of a people's vote, following his meeting with Plaid Cymru this afternoon, you'll end up actually passing each other, facing opposite directions, like sinking ships in the night.

And then there's the question, First Minister, if another referendum were to happen, which way would you and the Labour Party campaign and vote? Interviewed by Sky News on Sunday, Jeremy Corbyn seemed, finally, to come off the fence. And then he got back on it. First, he conceded that there should be another referendum, on what he termed a credible deal to leave the European Union, by which he meant a deal negotiated by Labour to set up a new customs union and close alignment with the single market, and an option to remain in the EU. When he was pressed as to how he would vote in such a referendum, he answered that it was his preference to recognise the result of the 2016 referendum. Obfuscation is dead, long live obfuscation. What did he mean by that? First Minister, perhaps you can tell us here now. My colleagues in Westminster will certainly be asking him. But your statement today suggests that it's your preference too to secure your version of Brexit over a 'remain' result in any future referendum.

Finally, can I turn to the analysis for your Government by King's College London Professor Jonathan Portes, which has found that Wales will be harder hit than the rest of the UK by the proposed £30,000 minimum salary for skilled migrants who look to come to the UK from 2021? He said that, while average full-time earnings for the UK as a whole are not far off £30,000, in Wales they are significantly below that. Consequently, they would be a huge barrier to Welsh businesses seeking skilled professionals from abroad. He recommended a £20,000 minimum salary to apply to Wales. So far, the Welsh Government—as far as I've been able to find out—hasn't expressed a view about the results of its own research. So, First Minister, do you agree with Professor Portes, and, if so, what are you doing to persuade the UK Government to take his recommendations on board?

Well, Adam Price began by referring to the collaborative approach that is being attempted elsewhere, and I am very glad about that. And I am very glad that Members of his party, and other parties, will be coming together in order to try and find that different way through the House of Commons. 

In the middle part of what Adam had to say—he is obsessed with people who are not in this Assembly, and who are not answerable to it. So, I will simply speak for myself and the responsibilities that I discharge here. I believe that the Welsh Government has been consistent throughout and that there is absolute clarity in our position. It may be complicated, but it is clear, and it's the one that I've set out this afternoon—that there is a deal to be done on the basis of the proposals that we have consistently supported since they were first formulated in discussions with Plaid Cymru here in the Assembly, and we continue to support those proposals. I know the Member has moved far away from them in recent times, and, of course, he's quite entitled to do that, but we have not. We continue to believe that they provide a prescription that could work for Wales and that's my position today. 

It does no-one any good, when saying that they are in favour of a position, not to look at the difficulties that position might also entail. While I support—I say it again; I've said it so many times here—a second public vote as a way through a deadlocked House of Commons, it doesn't do anybody any favours not to look at the things that would have to be solved in the path of that solution, and that's what I tried to do this afternoon. And to dismiss them as though they didn't exist, as though a second referendum would not be divisive—. This issue is divisive in this Chamber, this issue is divisive in our society. If we have another vote—and if that's what we need, I will support it absolutely—then we know that there will be people who will take strongly different views on it, and to shake a head and to act as though that were not important does not do justice to the significance of that decision. 

What would the Welsh Government's position be were there to be a second referendum? Well, I've said this clearly many times as well—that if there is a second referendum, and remaining in the European Union is on that ballot paper, then nothing that I have seen in the last two and a half years leads me to believe that the advice we gave people in Wales in the first referendum was the wrong advice. We advised people then that people's future in Wales was best secured through continued membership of the European Union, and that would be my honest advice to people if we had another chance to vote on that. Wales's future is best secured through membership of the European Union. Now, many people here disagree—of course, they do. That's why I said that the debate would inevitably be one that would divide us. But that is my honest view. Nothing that I have seen in the meantime has changed it. It would be a difficult view to put to many Labour voters who take a different view to that. But if we have another public vote, and remaining in the European Union is on the ballot paper, the advice of this Government will be that that is in the best interest of Wales. 

Let me turn to the very final point—[Interruption.] Sorry, Dirprwy Lywydd. The very final point the Member made was about the Jonathan Portes report. It's the second report that Professor Portes has provided for the Welsh Government. I was very glad of a chance to meet him and to discuss his first report. What he does is to pinpoint two of the major flaws in the migration policy put forward by the UK Government: it's insistence on an arbitrary salary cap and it's insistence on an arbitrary division of the workforce into skilled and unskilled. Neither of those things work for Wales.

I spoke at length to the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee asking him whether he had done any analysis of those propositions on the Welsh economy. He told me that he hadn't. It's little wonder that Professor Portes—the leading expert on these matters in the UK—comes to a conclusion that says a £30,000 salary cap would be inimical to the interests of businesses, public services and universities in Wales. And describing people who work in our social care system as low skilled and, therefore, not needed to be recruited from other parts of the world flies in the face of the work that people from other parts of the European Union do every day in Wales providing services to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. We will support the conclusions of the Portes report, and when we've had a proper chance to digest it and to discuss it with the author, then we will make clear our conclusions from it.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? Though, by the six o'clock news tonight, some of it may be redundant, as the shambolic Government in Westminster runs around trying to change it and produce new definitions of its own existing deal to keep it on those papers. There are a couple of points I want to raise with you. We've obviously heard arguments about where we are with the process, and we are now less than 10 days away from exit under the law—as we know is there in law at the moment—and the decisions of the UK Government over two and a half years have actually got nowhere on this process. But we are now in a position where we know, if a 'no deal' exists, we now have tariffs being introduced. They were announced last week and published last week by the UK Government. Perhaps you can give an indication as to how those tariffs would impact upon the Welsh economy, particularly in relation to Welsh ports, because part of those tariff discussions include no tariff between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which clearly would encourage Irish businesses to transport their goods through Northern Ireland on to Liverpool because there'll be no checks on that aspect either? That would impact very much upon Welsh ports. The discussions you're having with the UK Government as to how they will secure investment and the productivity of those Welsh ports will be critical.

In relation to the discussions on an extension, we don't know how long it will be, we don't know what she intends—she's talking about a short one and a long one. We don't even know whether, as you say, the EU-27 will agree to it either, because there has to be a purpose and I've not yet heard a purpose. Has she given you a purpose in any discussions she's had with you as to what that extension will actually try to achieve? Because we all talk about it, but we don't know what the intention is or what it's purpose will be. 

Do you also agree with me that we are playing games and there are serious consequences to those games, because of the relationship she's having with the DUP behind closed doors? It is clear from the information we're getting that there's a possibility of the DUP being offered a seat at the table in trade negotiations. What will happen to both the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation to that operation? But also funding—what argument is going to be put into place as to how she can justify giving more money to the DUP, when we again get nothing out of this and therefore we see an impact upon our economies as we crash out without a deal because 60 per cent of our exports go to the EU? So, where are we with that?

The leader of the opposition highlighted businesses' preparation for a 'no deal', but can you also give us information as to what you're doing with local government, because, again, local government will be seriously hit, and public bodies such as health bodies, because we all know the implications for our health services of the 'no deal' scenarios? Unfortunately—not what a lot of people would want to happen next week—we are moving closer and closer and closer to a 'no deal' scenario.

I do have a conspiracy theory that perhaps the UK Government and the Prime Minister in particular likes to move towards this because it suits their needs—an extension, a long extension to come back with—. That's going to push Brexiteers into accepting her deal. It's clearly a move, and based upon her actions last week, where she promised a free vote on Tuesday night after she lost the vote in the House by 149—she got up and actually promised a free vote to her party on a 'no deal'. On the following day, she actually then changed her mind and whipped her Members against her own motion. So, how can she be trusted in reality to actually deliver on commitments she's made at the despatch box? Because she promised this at the despatch box, and that's an important aspect. We have to have confidence in a deal being offered by the Prime Minister. If our Prime Minister is not even meeting her own promises to her own party, how can we trust that coming to us?

On the trade agreements again, First Minister, we had a discussion last week on the LCM on the Trade Bill, but I'm going to ignore the Trade Bill for the moment—let's look at the continuity trade agreements that were being discussed. I understand six are now done, but can you confirm as to whether the Welsh Government had sight of those trade agreements prior to them being signed? Have you insisted upon seeing other trade agreements prior to signature? Because these have a major impact upon the Welsh economy and these are changing policy. They're not as simple as a carry-over; there are changes to policy as a consequence of these. So, where are we in getting the situation of having a Welsh voice in those agreements before they are signed.

Can you also tell us—? Legislation—one of the arguments she's using for an extension is because we haven't got time to put all the legislation through. How much legislation is still required by us in this Assembly based upon UK Government doing legislation there first, because, clearly, there are going to be parts of the legislation that we can't do until they've done theirs? So, where are we in the timetable of getting ours completed and do we have an idea that, actually, they will all be done by 30 June—preferably 23 May, because that's another date that is being discussed for the European elections?

And finally—.

And finally, yes—[Laughter.] Do you agree with me that one of the biggest mistakes last week was not supporting Hilary Benn's amendment, whereby they could actually get a consensus on a position on a possible solution in the House of Commons, which would actually let us know exactly the type of vote that could take place and the sort of agreement that could be in place if we knew what the majority of the House of Commons agreed on?

Well, Llywydd, I'll do my best to be as quick as I can in answering those questions. Of course, David Rees is absolutely right that our ports are affected by the tariff model that the Government has suggested across the island of Ireland. It's been a long period of education of UK Ministers about the fact that we have ports in Wales and the important job that they do. And he's quite right to say that the current suggestion would be to the detriment of Welsh ports, because goods will inevitably travel from south to north and come into the UK from the north part of Ireland. 

As far as the DUP is concerned, I see that the First Minister of Scotland has written to the UK Government this afternoon, setting out concerns that we would certainly share about the way in which reports of discussions with the DUP are emerging, in which somehow the DUP would have a seat at the table in trade negotiations. It's absolutely astonishing, Llywydd, that any suggestion of that sort could be made with a single political party not even in administration anywhere in the United Kingdom and to the neglect of administrations in Wales and in Scotland. The continuing suggestions that yet more money might be poured down the throats of the DUP—I'm glad austerity is over in one part of the United Kingdom, but it is fundamentally unfair and entirely in breach of the statement of funding policy that money should be passed to one part of the United Kingdom for responsibilities that are shared elsewhere. And that includes England, as well as Wales and Scotland.

As far as local government is concerned, our discussions with them focus on food, particularly food in schools, food in residential care homes, food for older people who rely on domiciliary care, and making sure that, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, there are systems in place to protect the most vulnerable.

In relation to the health service, we have for the first time, I believe, now had to commit money in relation to a 'no deal' Brexit. You've heard my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for health, talk about a warehouse that we have had to deploy in Newport. We do so because it is necessary to protect the interests of the Welsh health service and Welsh patients against a 'no deal' Brexit.

Will the Prime Minister's blackmail Brexit succeed? The way that she continually tries to persuade people to go into the lobby in support of her, because otherwise something even worse might happen—well, it's a game of Russian roulette, and our futures really ought not to be being negotiated in that way. Can the Prime Minister be trusted? Well, I think I reported to the Chamber last week that, when I was in Brussels during our half-term break, I was struck by the strength with which good friends of Wales and the United Kingdom reported their belief that the Prime Minister's actions in backing the Brady amendment had marked a fundamental breach of faith. She supported an amendment against the agreement that she had struck with the European Union. How could they feel confident in going on negotiating with someone who was prepared to do that?

Legislation needed here does depend, as David Rees said, on statutory instruments that have to be passed through the House of Commons. We are ready. We are confident that we are in the right place; whether they are is a different matter.

And finally, on the Hilary Benn amendment, Dirprwy Lywydd, shall I tell you something that happened to me that is more or less unique in my own experience? I was knocking on doors in the Newport by-election last Thursday evening, as many Members here were no doubt as well. I knocked a door and a man came to the door and he immediately said to me, 'You must come in, you must come in.' I had no idea what I'd done, but what he wanted me to do was to see the result of the vote on the Hilary Benn amendment. So, I stood in his front room and saw it happen, and I absolutely share your reaction to it. It was a moment when the House of Commons could have taken control of this process, and to lose that vote by two votes was, I think, deeply disappointing to those of us who hoped that that was a moment when a different course of action could have been embarked upon.

Well, I enjoyed the First Minister's evisceration of the Prime Minister and the utter political shambles that she and the Conservative Party have created, but I think the greater shambles is that of the opposition, because, in spite of having what I believe to be the most incompetent Prime Minister in 250 years, the leader of the opposition has not profited in any way from what has happened and Labour are still apparently 10 points behind in the opinion polls—[Interruption.] But the—[Interruption.] The establishment elites—[Interruption.] The establishment elites are now quite clearly and openly determined to frustrate the Brexit referendum that we had two and a half years ago. The Labour Party, Plaid Cymru, the Conservative Party, even, are determined not to deliver on what the people voted for in 2016. Let's just remind ourselves, shall we, that 406 constituencies out of 650 voted to leave; 247 Conservative constituencies voted to leave and only 80 to remain; 148 Labour constituencies voted to leave and only 84 to remain; and yet, in this place, 49 of our Assembly Members voted to remain and 480 out of the 650 MPs also voted to remain. There is a remainer majority by a very long way both in this Assembly and in the House of Commons, and it is determined, absolutely determined, come what may, at any cost to stand in the way of what the people voted for and—I'm pleased to have Alun Davies nodding in acquiescence over there—[Interruption.]—to vote against what the people voted for just two and half short years ago. And last week the House of Commons proved it, because it voted against leaving the EU on the Prime Minister's so-called deal, it voted against leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms, also called 'no deal', and it voted for extending article 50. By no stretch of the imagination can that be called voting for Brexit in any shape or form. And, as Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, said:

'It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the UK indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.'

That is the shambles that Theresa May has created and which the Labour Party doesn't really disagree with. Actually, it wants to go even further than Theresa May in giving away all the cards that we had in our hand and to stay inside the EU. Is the First Minister concerned at the gulf that is developing between the people who voted for Brexit by a majority—56 per cent in Newport West; as the First Minister mentioned that constituency, I thought I'd quote that figure—and the political elites? There is a poll published by ComRes in The Daily Telegraph today, which asks the people various questions: do they trust MPs to do the right thing by the country over Brexit? Sixty-eight per cent disagree. Another question: 'It has felt as if the EU has been trying to punish the UK over Brexit.' Sixty-one per cent agree with that proposition. If the UK left the EU without a deal on 29 March, with that be the best possible outcome? Forty-three per cent agreed with that proposition; only 30 per cent disagreed.

The policy that the First Minister and the Welsh Labour Government have is wholly at variance with a very, very large proportion of people in this country and indeed a greater proportion than those who support his view. What does he think it will do to democracy in this country if, at the end of this process, there is, in effect, no change? Once this deal goes through, if it does, then Britain's membership of the EU could be prolonged indefinitely. And, yes, it could be postponed until 30 June, but nothing's going to change between now and 30 June and then, of course, all the pressure will be on to extend it beyond that, and so on ad infinitum. Why would the EU possibly want to give us any concessions when it's already got everything that it ever wanted? That's the key question that we have here, I believe. What is going to be the health of British democracy in future if it is betrayed by those to whom the people have entrusted it?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, you think that the debate on Brexit moves beyond parody, and then you find yourself being accused by Neil Hamilton of belonging to the establishment and an elite. At that point, I feel the boundary where you thought there was no further scope for extending it finds itself extended yet further.

Do I worry about the democratic health of our country? Of course I do. It's why I said what I said in my statement. My worry is not his worry, because he always wants to paint this in a way that appeals to the populist instincts of his supporters. I worry about the relationships between people. I worry about relationships between people who take strongly different views on this matter and where I really, really believe every one of us has to act carefully when we put our view forward in respecting the views of others who take a different point of view. If we're not able to do that, then the threats to our democratic health are real, and those things are on the surface and close to the surface of this debate.

The real danger we face, though, Dirprwy Lywydd, is not the one that the Member refers to at all. The real danger we face is that 10 days from now we could have left the European Union without any deal of any sort and nobody—but nobody—told people in the referendum that that's what this was all about. We were to leave the European Union in one of the easiest negotiations that would ever have been conducted. We were to leave the European Union in a way in which all the advantages were to be on our side and none of the disadvantages. If we leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal of any sort, then the impact here in Wales will be catastrophic and the impact of that on our democratic health really is something that we should all be worried about.

And finally—and very briefly—Alun Davies. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the First Minister for his statement this afternoon. I will say to him that I regret very much the tone he used when he described the opportunity to provide for a public vote and to provide for a final say for the people of this country. It is, of course, the policy of Welsh Labour, of Labour, it's the policy of the Welsh Government, it's the policy that he himself placed in front of Members some weeks ago and asked this Parliament to adopt as the policy that we would want to see pursued. I do, therefore, believe that there's been a very clear undertaking, given that the Government of Wales will not simply describe the problems and the difficulties facing us, but will proactively seek to prepare for a vote to take place. And these are two different things. It isn't simply rehearsing academic arguments. It's saying that this is the most important issue facing this country at the moment. We know there's a mess in London. We know there's a mess in Westminster. We know that the UK Government cannot agree with itself, let alone anyone else. We know that they don't know what their policy is today, tomorrow, the next week. We know all of those things. But what we have to do in this Parliament and this Government is to do better than that and to do more than that, and that means to be true to what we believe in, and not to equivocate, not to find words in which to find different ways to escape our commitments, but to argue clearly for those commitments.

So, I hope, therefore, First Minister, you will be very, very clear in committing to the policy that the people of this country should have a final say, that the Welsh Government will campaign for a remain option and to campaign to remain, and what we will do here is accept there is no such thing as a jobs-first Brexit, but what is important to us is the principle—the principle—that the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom should have the final say on any agreement reached.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I could not have been clearer this afternoon in setting out the policy of the Government because it has been the policy of this Government ever since we started to debate it here. It's been repeated and repeated in resolutions, put down by the Government and carried in this Assembly, that there is a way of leaving the European Union that can protect jobs and the economy here in Wales. But if that is impossible, and the House of Commons is deadlocked, then the decision should go back to the people. And it was the Welsh Government that put a resolution in front of this Assembly that asked for preparations to begin so that we do not lose that opportunity by default—that we've simply ran out of time in order for that to happen.

Joyce Watson took the Chair.

What I won't do, Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro, what I will not do, is to pretend on the floor of this Assembly that, somehow, we are in charge of things that we are not. In the end, a referendum does not lie in the hands of people in this Assembly, and we should be honest about that. Nor will I pretend that if that is where we end up, that that is somehow a difficulty-free option. Because there are difficulties that lie in its path; there are practical difficulties and there are political difficulties as well.

The Member asked me if there were to be a second referendum and 'remain' were to be on the ballot paper, well, I say again, as I have said here, that the position of the Welsh Government would be that we remain in favour of Welsh membership of the European Union. I say that despite the difficulties that I think there would be in it because that is the honest position. But it is honest as well to explain to people that even if you are, as I know the Member is, strongly committed to a second vote amongst the people, that has issues that have to be faced in it as well, and it does nobody any good to act as though those could simply be wiped away in a burst of rhetorical enthusiasm.