The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 2 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendment 3 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. 

We now move on to item 9 on the agenda, which is the UKIP debate on the European Union, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion.

Motion NDM7019 Gareth Bennett

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that the Treaty on the European Union commits member states to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.

2. Regrets that, since 1973, the EU has taken power away from elected national parliaments, and concentrated it in the hands of unelected EU institutions.

3. Notes the erosion of national vetoes in favour of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, in an expanding number of policy areas, and that this trend will continue indefinitely.

4. Believes that the ongoing uncertainty of negotiations between the EU and United Kingdom create a danger that the United Kingdom will remain within the European Union, contrary to the decided will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum result.

5. Believes that the European project is a relentless force, promoted by the EU’s permanent institutions, notably the Commission, and that the risks of remaining within the EU include becoming subject to a European army, further economic integration and erosion of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty.

6. Calls on the UK Government to focus all efforts on reaching a free trade agreement with the EU as swiftly as possible, to facilitate a full and unimpeded exit from the European Union.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. For almost two years, we've endured the prophecies of a cataclysmic impact on the UK economy should we leave the EU in a 'no deal' scenario—such adverse consequences promulgated by both socialist parties of this Assembly and much of which is sheer negative speculation. We in UKIP concede there may be some short-term negative impacts on our economy, but almost all economic experts predict this to be only short term. However, in this debate, UKIP wishes to concentrate more on the political implications of us remaining in the EU. 

Remaining in the EU is, of course, the ultimate objective of both the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, and in the former, at least, an indisputable desire to frustrate the will of an overwhelming number of their Labour voters. Perhaps we should note here that the people of Sunderland, despite the overt threats to the future of the Nissan plant, steadfastly remain in favour of leaving the EU. This appears to be true for all the regions that voted leave, including those here in Wales. This can only point to one thing: the desire to leave Europe goes far beyond economic benefits, or otherwise. It is about the people's desire to regain control of all our institutions, particularly the power of our parliaments, our judiciary, our borders, our fishing grounds and a host of other areas that have been ceded to Brussels.  

Will the Member give way? 

Of course. 

Look, your motion actually says that you are against handing powers from national parliaments to unelected institutions, but the policy that you've just adopted is about taking power from this national Parliament and giving it to Westminster, half of which are unelected members. So, the real nationalism that is at the heart of your motion is actually made clear. It's British nationalism. 

I'm sure that the AM is misreading what we're saying. We're saying that we'll give a vote on that to the people. 

Contrary to the idea propagated by many in this Chamber, the people were very well aware of what they were voting for in the referendum. It seems that most in this Chamber wish to forget that a comprehensive brochure was sent to every household in Wales and the UK outlining the pros and cons of being in the UK, and because it came from a pro-remain Tory Government, there were far more pros outlined than cons. Are those in this Chamber who proffer the argument that the people did not understand what they were voting for inferring they were unable to read or understand that document?

In case anyone wishes to argue otherwise, the huge difficulties we now supposedly face in leaving the EU are almost entirely manufactured by the appalling way in which the Tories, headed by Theresa May, have handled the Brexit process. Almost everyone I speak to, including remainers, believe that the so-called negotiations under May have been a carefully constructed charade. And polls show that 90 per cent of the people say there's been a total capitulation, leading to a complete humiliation of the peoples of the UK. 

We have heard ad infinitum the so-called consequences of us leaving the EU, but what will be the consequences of us remaining in the EU? Perhaps we should examine some of those consequences. First, if we remain in the EU, we shall remain wedded to the common agricultural policy, a regime that has been environmentally disastrous and has reduced most British farmers to a begging-bowl existence, or sometimes financial ruin. It is true that it has had the effect of making some farmers in the south-east of England virtual millionaires. Despite promises for some 30 years, there have been no significant changes to the EU's farming policy or, indeed, the common fishing policy. 

If we remain, our rich fishing grounds will continue to be exploited by foreign vessels, to the detriment of our fishermen and the British people, with a loss to the UK economy of some £900 million. The power of the Westminster Parliament and, by implication, the devolved administrations, including this Assembly, will continue to be diluted. European courts will continue to have supremacy over our courts. We will ultimately be part of a European army under the command of Brussels. The Franco-German grand reform is a plan—. 

Excuse me, will you give way on that—

Yes.

—ridiculous remark? [Laughter.] Do you not understand that we're currently members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is based in Brussels, and that by being part of NATO we've pooled our sovereignty with some of our friends around the world to guarantee our safety, our security and our democracy? We've enhanced our sovereignty by being part of NATO, not diminished it.   

The great difference with that, of course, is that under NATO we still have control of our own forces. Under this proposed European army, we will not have control of our own forces—[Interruption.] No, I've listened to you. Thank you, very much.

The Franco-German grand reform is a plan to put in place a joint budget, Parliament and finance Minister for the eurozone. Should we remain in the EU, we will almost certainly be forced to join the eurozone at some point in the near future. Our economy will then be effectively run by the German Bundesbank. Our contributions to the EU are set to rise by at least £1 billion year on year, with the added prospect of us paying even more if our economy prospers, as was the case when Cameron was forced to pay over an extra £1.7 billion in 2014, of which France received £0.7 billion and which it is said they used to keep their public sector employees in jobs. This whilst we are forced to cut our front-line public employees to the bone.

Plaid Cymru, and Labour, if 'no deal' is taken off the table, clamour for a second referendum. Well, perhaps we ought to point out that there were 84,000 more Brexiteers in Wales than there were remainers; a stark contrast to the 6,700 majority that secured the establishment of this Assembly, yet both parties are content to accept the legitimacy of the Assembly referendum, whilst denying the European one. Again, it should be noted that 16 out of the 22 local authorities in Wales voted to leave. Anything other than leaving the European institutions in their entirety will be a direct denial of what the people of Wales voted for. Again, Labour and Plaid Cymru clamour for what they call 'a people's vote'. Who do they think voted the last time? Some clandestine subspecies? I firmly believe that however you seek to clothe it, however you seek to disguise it, your efforts to deny the people of Wales their democratic vote to leave the EU will ultimately cost you at the ballot box.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. So, can I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 1 tabled in his own name?

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that Wales voted to leave the European Union in the referendum in June 2016.

2. Believes that the outcome of the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union must be respected and that the decision to leave should be implemented.

3. Calls upon the Welsh Government to continue to work with UK Government as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to thank the UKIP group, or what's left of it, for bringing this timely debate forward today, and of course it is timely because we would have been leaving the European Union on Friday. That's what MPs have previously voted for in agreeing to trigger article 50. That's what the public voted for in the 2017 general election, with 36 of Wales's 40 MPs elected on a manifesto promise to deliver Brexit. And, of course, that is what Wales voted for back in 2016, as we've quite rightly already heard.

The problem is that many politicians in both Westminster and here in the National Assembly believe that they know better than the people who elect them. They don't respect the result of the referendum or the reasons why so many individuals voted to leave the EU. And they're now perpetuating that anger and resentment against an out-of-touch political establishment by trying to overturn the verdict of the biggest democratic exercise in Wales in a generation.

So, we will not be supporting the Plaid Cymru amendment, which calls for a return and a rerun of the referendum in a people's vote. This would be a complete betrayal of voters across Wales, including Plaid voters in many Plaid Cymru areas, all of whom voted to leave, especially Carmarthenshire, Ynys Môn, Rhondda and many parts of the south Wales Valleys. We'll be opposing also—

Will you take an intervention?

I'll happily take the intervention, yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention, but can you not understand that in the case of Ynys Môn, for example, it's pretty much exactly 50:50? Things can change from one day to the other, almost, and to suggest that we are ignoring what was said and what the result was of that referendum—what on earth have we been doing for the past three years other than trying to find ways of making it work? And we as a party that doesn't want to leave the European Union have put forward all sorts of ways of looking after Wales's interests and mitigating the damaging effects of Brexit.

I appreciate that it's an inconvenient truth that your constituency voted to leave the EU but that is the case.

We will also be opposing the flip-flop amendment from the Welsh Government. Jeremy Corbyn, of course, was lukewarm about staying in the EU and has since taken the bizarre position of pledging to deliver Brexit but consistently voting against the only deal that has been on the floor of the House of Commons to deliver it. And, at the same time, of course, he's been stringing along many of his own MPs, who want a clear commitment to start all over again with another referendum. His protégé in this National Assembly, the First Minister, has also been all over the place on Brexit. One minute he's favoured a general election, one minute he's proposed revised deals, but now we're told—and I quote—that he's, 'Very near favouring a second people's vote.' We saw that Owen Smith, the Pontypridd MP, said that he and a lot of other people are considering quitting Labour over its own Brexit shambles. Of course, he was sacked from the Labour frontbench for advocating a second referendum and breaking collective responsibility, unlike two Members of the current Welsh Government's Cabinet, who have also broken collective responsibility—[Interruption.] Yes.

I'm glad you're talking about quitting, because I'll just remind you that the Tory Government have lost three Ministers just this week. So, let's get real here. But I want to put a quote out here:

'The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.'

Liam Fox, 2017.

'Post #Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else'.

David Davis.

And I could go on, because it's absolutely a load of lies.

I took a very long intervention there, Deputy Presiding Officer. But I will say this: at least Conservatives have the decency, when they disagree with their Government, to resign from the Government, unlike Members of the Welsh Government.

You either accept the decision of the people or you don't, and, if you don't, you should have the courage to say so, but, of course, the First Minister's not prepared to say so, which is why he's been trying to tread this very fine line, because he wants to try and follow the position of his boss, Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, our amendment to this motion, which I move, is very clear and simple. We respect the result of the referendum and we urge the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government as we leave the European Union. Today, MPs, a number of whom are determined to overturn Brexit, will be taking part in a series of indicative votes to try to determine a way forward, but it is absolutely clear that the quickest and most orderly departure from the EU would be to accept the compromise deal that has been agreed between the Prime Minister and EU leaders, and I very much hope that MPs who are committed to respecting the democratic result of the referendum will not hold out in the hope of what they regard to be a perfect Brexit deal. Instead, we need some pragmatism, and that's why I'm urging everybody to support this sensible compromise that the Prime Minister has developed with the EU, which I believe does deliver on the people's vote of 2016. A failure to support that deal could mean significant delays to Brexit; it could require us to take part in the EU elections, which are coming up in May; or even put Brexit at risk for years to come. But, of course, if we back the Prime Minister's compromise deal, the UK could be out of the EU in a matter of weeks, and that would deliver on the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I call on the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Delete all after 'National Assembly for Wales' and replace with:

1.  Notes that the European Union and its predecessor has been a positive force for continued peace and stability in Europe since its foundation.

2. Reiterates its support for the position endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales in successive votes on 4th December 2018, 30th January 2019 and 5th March 2019

3. Believes that whatever the outcome of the current negotiations, the United Kingdom should seek to maintain the closest possible economic, social and environmental links between the UK and the other 27 states which make up the EU.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally. 

I call on Adam Price to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Adam Price. 

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated between the UK Government and the European Union has been repeatedly rejected by the UK Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.

2. Notes that the National Assembly for Wales voted on 30 January 2019 that ‘work should begin immediately on preparing for a public vote’.

3. Believes that Article 50 should be extended for up to 21 months so that a people’s vote can be held to allow the people to decide whether to approve the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement or remain in the EU.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to make a statement to the Assembly detailing the steps they have taken to prepare for a people’s vote and what representations they have made to the UK Government to this effect.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. There's a temptation, as our fate is being decided tonight in that other Parliament by a series of pink slips—there's a redundancy metaphor there that I could develop—[Laughter.]—for us to hold our breath, but even as Westminster collapses into cacophony, we need to struggle even further to make our voices heard.

Sixty years ago, a former Conservative Prime Minister referred to the wind of change sweeping through another continent. Brexit, if it happens, will be a wind of change between us and the continent, but let's be clear about one thing: it will be a destructive one. In Westminster, over two and a half years, it has raged like a maelstrom, it has defenestrated our political institutions and it's eaten away at the very foundations of our democracy. Westminster itself has become a spinning weathervane, facing all ways at once, and at the heart of the vortex is a vacuum where once there was a Government. Now, Brexit has already done deep damage to our democratic culture, to civility, to tolerance, and that damage will not be undone easily or quickly, whatever happens. We should have no illusions about that. It's done damage because of one simple fact: the main proponents of Brexit lied to us. There is an honest case to be made to end the relationship between ourselves and the European Union. It's not, in my view, a particularly strong or compelling one, which is why it's not the one that was made. I give way in regret—[Inaudible.] 

Hasn't the damage been done by those on the losing side of that referendum who have refused to accept the result and will not implement it?

Look, the point is this, okay? The case that was put in front of the people was a cynical act of moral deception, right? You lied; you lied to people, and that's been made clear. I'm not going to take—

On a point of order, Llywydd. 

I'm not going to take—

It was not a personal reference.

Well, he waved his hand in my direction and said 'you'.

Carry on, Adam Price.

I was using the collective.

And calm down, Mark Reckless.

Look, it's because of that deception that we now have an imperative to be honest with people about the consequences of the choices that are being made tonight. I can see why the shadow trade Secretary this morning said that Labour was not a remain party; that Labour would not support the revoke amendments, et cetera, but now is not the time to be politically expedient or to be equivocal. We have to make our choice and our voices clear. I'm not going to say anything more about UKIP. I'm glad there are cordon sanitaires now opened up between us. So, look, let's not talk about them.

As far as the Conservative Party—your amendment, like your politics, is empty. I mean, 'Keep calm and carry on' may be a nice poster, but it's not a political strategy when you're facing a brick wall or a cliff edge.

The most disappointing amendment, I have to say, yet again, is the Government's. Like a whole host of Welsh Government statements we've had, it's more significant for what it doesn't say. It omits to mention the idea—the central idea, surely—of a confirmatory referendum or a people's vote. That fails to recognise, in our view, that the key dividing line on this key issue of our times is no longer, actually, between a soft or a hard Brexit; the debate has moved on. It's between Brexit and no Brexit. The Government amendment says that

'whatever the outcome of the current negotiations, the United Kingdom should seek to maintain the closest possible economic, social and environmental links between the UK and the other 27 states which make up the EU.'

I wholeheartedly agree with that. But surely the closest possible relationship is to remain within the EU, and if you believe that, then say it.

Our amendment is an honest attempt to rectify this omission. As Westminster conducts its own indicative votes, we need to indicate here, tonight, that we are ready to do our part. It's not enough for us to call on the UK Government to make preparations for a people's vote; we have a responsibility too. We need to prepare—to prepare the argument—so let's pass the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth and meet this week, as leaders in our respective parties, across party and build the campaign for the referendum and also start to plan to win that campaign. What greater contrast to the series of divisions that we'll see at Westminster tonight than to strike a note of unity here in Wales?

If I think back over the last three years of this debate, I have to say, I don't believe that this has enhanced our democracy or our democratic traditions, either in Wales or across the United Kingdom. We've seen people who claim to be campaigning for the restoration of a sovereignty that I, frankly, don't believe ever existed, then attacking the fundamental structures and architecture of that sovereignty. Judges are no longer the independent arm of a judiciary, they are enemies of the people because they happen to disagree with UKIP and with Brexiteers. Parliament and MPs are abused, and I see this in my own home, how MPs are systematically abused for standing up in the House of Commons and saying what they believe. What greater tenet is there in any democratic tradition that an elected Member can stand in a Chamber and speak their mind without being abused and without receiving threats? There's a 77-year-old lady—let me finish this point—who launched a petition last week. She is now receiving protection because of the death threats she has received. How does that enhance and strengthen our democratic traditions? I'll give way.

I utterly condemn those sorts of appalling behaviours, much of which we see on social media before our very eyes, but do you accept that much of that is also being targeted at those who wish to leave the EU and are supporters of Brexit in precisely the same way? That is also not acceptable and I'm sure you'd want to join me in condemning that also.

I condemn all sorts. I condemn it without qualification. But I also say to the Member for Clwyd West that the language he uses—. In his own contribution this afternoon, he's talked about an out-of-touch political establishment and used the word 'betrayal'. Now, that, to me, is not the hallmark of a democrat who recognises and values points of view with which they disagree.

Let me say this: clearly, I believe that our sovereignty is enhanced by membership of the European Union and not diminished. I have confidence in the United Kingdom, I have confidence in the people of Britain and the people of Wales. I believe that we have the ability to shape the world around us. I believe that we have the ability to influence the world around us. When a UK Minister goes to New York to speak at the United Nations, I don't believe that in some way we're being undermined as a country or a people or a culture; I believe that what we're doing is participating in world affairs and I'm proud that we do it.

When I attended meetings of the Council of Ministers to represent Wales, whether it was agriculture, whether it was fisheries, whether it was general affairs councils, I didn't believe for one moment—and it didn't happen—that we were being told what to do; that we were being given our instructions. We joined together with our closest friends and neighbours in order to do the best thing for all of our peoples. And what we did there was to change the way that international diplomacy and international affairs have been conducted on the continent of Europe, but elsewhere in the world. We've demonstrated that a continent can rise from the ashes and slaughter of war to build something different, to build something for the future.

When we were in Brussels a few weeks ago, speaking to the New Zealand ambassador there, he was talking about how they wanted to export some of their values through the world—he talked about sustainability. That is what the European Union has done; it has done it across the world and it has done it here as well. I believe that the debate over Brexit has done as much damage to our democracy as the expenses scandal did a decade ago. It has undermined trust in people, it has undermined trust in the institutions and it has undermined trust in the process. And that has largely been done by those people who've used the sort of language that I believe is unacceptable. I read a tweet from Mark Reckless the other week. It said:

'We won, you lost. If you block Brexit and democracy you will reap what you sow.'

Will the Member give way?

I will give way, because I'm sure the Member wants the opportunity to apologise for that and to withdraw it.

The Member, when we had that debate, attacked me and shouted at me that I was a visitor. I've lived in this country for over three years, and I was attacked by you, as a visitor. In this debate, I've been attacked as a liar, and nothing is done about it. That is not democracy and that is not how a Parliament should operate.

I don't think this tweet was meant for me on that occasion and I notice that you haven't apologised for it.

But that is the language that leads to threats to my partner; it's what leads to police officers in my home, protecting my family, and it is your language that's doing that. And by doing so, you undermine our democracy and you should be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself.

Calling me a visitor. Will you apologise for that?

And when you tell me to shut up and to sit down, what you're doing is undermining the democracy—[Interruption.] I won't give way again, I'm fed up of you. Let me say this: when the Member tells me to sit down and shut up, what he does, of course, is to undermine the democracy in this Chamber as well. And let me say this: we won't allow you to do it. We will not allow you to do it. This democracy in this place is something that I've fought for all my adult life—

You've just insulted me by calling me a visitor and then you won't apologise.

Can we stop shouting? The microphone is not hearing anybody's comments other than the person who is on his feet.

Point of order.

There is no point of order—[Interruption.] Just because you are—[Interruption.] Just because you shout at me, it doesn't mean that I will accept any of the points you are making. Will you now calm down, Mark Reckless? Alun Davies.

Thank you very much. I would say that our democracy demands a number of things. It certainly demands the honesty and transparency that Adam Price described, but it also demands respect for other people's points of view, and that is a fundamental part and tenet of our democracy. It's also a recognition that nobody owns our democracy; we all do. But there's also a recognition that democracy didn't end in June 2016, and there is no such thing as a settled will of the people. It is up to us to invent and to reinvent our institutions and our constitution as we ourselves determine, and that's why I support a people's vote. It's why I support a final say for the people on the agreement—whatever agreement is finally reached—because we cannot here overturn a referendum, and neither should we try, although the Conservatives have tried, of course, on numerous occasions, to overturn the devolution referenda. What we have to do is to go back to the people.

We have to go back to the people and argue our case. We have to go back to the people and demonstrate that the points made by David Rowlands in opening this debate are largely erroneous and wholly wrong, both in fact, in substance and in interpretation. By doing that, I hope that we will do two things—and I'll finish on this point, Presiding Officer. We will certainly start to return the humanity to the debate in Wales and the United Kingdom; we will certainly begin to rebuild our democracy and the trust in the institutions that some people claim to want to strengthen. But we will do more than that. I hope what we will do is to start rebuilding a society that I would be proud to call home, a society where my son will grow up, not pointing at people and screaming at them, not threatening them because we disagree with them—

You're pointing at me as you're saying that. Can you please draw your conclusions?

It's an oratorical device; I'm sorry, Presiding Officer. 

I believe that that will return the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of our communities, and that is a sovereignty of which we can all be proud.

I wonder if Alun Davies would have supported a people's vote if the referendum result had gone the other way. But it didn't go the other way. Eighty-five per cent of votes cast in the 2017 UK general election were for parties that committed to abide by the referendum result and implement Brexit in their manifestos. It is therefore more than regrettable that many in this place have devoted all their energies since to promoting worst-case scenarios rather than respecting the people.

UK-EU negotiations have followed a staged process, which was known and understood from the outset, but some choose to misrepresent this as time wasted. Many of the same people have used what was agreed long before the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement as an excuse for opposing it now. The Irish border issue is important, but the legal text is clear that both parties want to avoid the use of the backstop and that article 50 cannot establish a permanent relationship. The EU themselves have made it very clear that they do not want a post-Brexit UK to remain in extended customs union and single market membership.

However, the real deal negotiated by the Prime Minister and her team, which required agreement with 27 others, is about very much more than this. As the Prime Minister stated, this deal delivers on the result of the referendum, taking back control of our money, borders and laws, while protecting jobs and national security. Although you wouldn't know it from the sensationalist debate about and coverage of the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration, the Prime Minister's Brexit deal includes a range of safeguards, including agreed arrangements that will let data continue to flow freely; trade arrangements for gas and electricity; strong rules to keep trade fair so that neither the UK nor EU can unfairly subsidise their industries against the other; a comprehensive air transport agreement and comparable access for freight operators, buses and coaches; agreed arrangements so we can continue to take part in EU programmes like Horizon and Erasmus; a co-operation agreement with Euratom, covering all the key areas where we want to collaborate; and continuing visa-free travel to the EU for holidays and business trips. Well, I've heard politicians telling the public, with apparent sincerity, that none of that was in the withdrawal deal currently being considered.

At least Plaid Cymru, as co-authors of the joint January 2017 Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future', are honest about their intention to, yes, betray the result of the EU referendum, despite Wales voting to leave the EU. In contrast, Labour Ministers and backbenchers—or, most of them—claim to respect the outcome of the referendum while promoting what amounts to Brexit in name only. Although some 60 per cent of UK Labour constituencies voted to leave, including 59 per cent to leave in Wrexham and 56 per cent in Flintshire, the Labour First Minister has repeatedly advocated the plan detailed in the joint Labour-Plaid Cymru White Paper for continued UK membership of the EU customs union and single market. This would mean no control of our borders, our trade and our laws, and a never-ending UK financial contribution to EU coffers. In other words: yes, a total betrayal by a Welsh establishment determined to thwart Brexit, which treats the people with arrogant contempt. I'll take one intervention.

I'm grateful to the Member for the intervention. He may not know but the Prime Minister has indicated that she's going to resign if the deal goes through—the first time in history that a leader has said that, if they get the backing of their party, they will resign, rather than the other way around. But I have to put this to him, and I'll be brief, Llywydd: in 1997, we had a referendum on devolution. The people of Wales voted to establish an Assembly, and yet, the Conservative whip at Westminster was to oppose the result of the referendum and oppose the establishment of the Assembly. How does he reconcile the Conservative view then with what he's advocating now?

Fortunately, we saw the error of our ways and changed our policy on that, and it's not been our policy now for 13 years. So, yes, nice look into the past.

However, mirroring Mr Corbyn's terminology, the First Minister has now slipped in the meaningless term 'a customs union' instead of 'the customs union', knowing full well that the Prime Minister is committed to a customs arrangement, and that whatever terminology we use for this, it is currently irrelevant in terms of the withdrawal deal.

It is technically correct for Labour and Plaid Cymru to keep stating that the withdrawal agreement does not guarantee that the UK would stay in a customs union. That's only because the withdrawal agreement is not designed to address our future trade relationship with the EU. Although the withdrawal agreement says the EU and the UK have a common objective of a close future relationship that would build on a single customs territory, this is for negotiation during the transition period agreed as part of the Prime Minister's deal.

In the real world, the UK reclaimed No. 1 position in the world's soft power league table last year. When people voted to leave the EU, they were voting for control. This is not about a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit but an open Brexit—one that ensures that the UK is still turned outwards and more engaged with the world than ever before. It remains overwhelmingly in the interests of both the UK and the EU to agree a friendly free trade deal and custom arrangements. If we can just get it right, then we can end up with a deep and special relationship with the EU—a strong European Union, buttressed by and supporting a strong and global UK, and still trading and co-operating closely with each other too. I just regret that so many people have put so much time and effort in seeking to frustrate that.

In this Chamber yesterday, the Welsh Government spent a considerable amount of time bringing forward legislative amendments readying the statute book for Brexit: regulations on everything from potatoes to tax, plant health to accounting, social care to rural affairs—you name it. And whilst these votes did not take long, I know that the preparatory work will have done. It will have taken days of painstaking and expensive work for lawyers, officials, Ministers, committees and translators. These regulations are just a tiny fraction of the work that is going on inside and outside of Government. Just consider the millions of working hours spent on Brexit in Whitehall, and for what? So we can lawfully ready ourselves for economic carnage.

I don't dispute that the Government needs to do this work, but I am simply horrified by the colossal waste of time, energy and resources we have already poured down the drain named Brexit. When it comes to the stormy waters we find ourselves in, I want to see more energy being put into keeping the economic ship afloat rather than preparing for it to sink. Because it isn't just costing the Government and taxpayers money, time and resources. Airbus recently said they'd already spent tens of millions preparing for a 'no deal' Brexit—that is tens of millions that should have been spent here in Wales on research and development, apprenticeships and new equipment. Little wonder that the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have now told the Prime Minister that this country is facing a national emergency. They said,

'We cannot overstate the gravity of this crisis for firms and working people'.

And what has been Theresa May's response to this emergency? Firstly, to make one of the most shameful speeches ever made by a Prime Minister in this country, blaming Parliament and, by extension, individual MPs for betraying the public—a grotesque smear in a country that just three years ago lost a Member of Parliament to a political assassination.

You made reference in your remarks there to the CBI. Of course, they're supporting the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal. Will you also accept their advice in respect of their support for the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal?

My position's been very clear, Darren—I want a people's vote, and I notice you haven't bothered defending Theresa May today.

Even after stinging criticism from all sides there was no attempt to reach out and compromise. Like something out of a Bertie Wooster novel, the Prime Minister then invited a bewildering bunch of posh white men to her country retreat in a bid to sort the whole thing out. That the assembled ranks then decided to refer to themselves as 'grand wizards', a title associated with the Ku Klux Klan, tells you absolutely everything you need to know about where some of the key architects of Brexit are on the political and intellectual spectrum. It takes something for the Tories to keep pace with a UKIP party now fully associated with Tommy Robinson, but this week they've managed it.

And what of UKIP? The motion we have before us today simply shows the complete lack of responsibility they have for the lies we were all told in the 2016 referendum. There's nothing new here—no proposed solutions to today's crisis. Just tired, reheated rhetoric about a European superstate. If you could turn the tiny, soggy, Leave Means Leave march into an opposition day motion, then this is what it would look like.

The terrible state of this grubby Brexiteer campaign could not have been put into any sharper relief than by the 1 million-plus 'Put it to the People' march in London on Saturday—1 million people, whose determination was matched by their dignity showed that where Westminster is failing, the public is not. I was incredibly proud to be there, marching alongside London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, and members from all political parties and people from all walks of life. Much is made of the age divide and class divide between remain and Brexit voters in 2016, but everyone was represented on that march. It was positive, it was vibrant, it was forward-looking—exactly the kind of Wales and Britain we should all want in the future. Add this to the unprecedented public petition to revoke article 50, which at the latest count looks ready to go beyond 6 million signatories, and it simply cannot be said that the country just wants us to get on and to get out of the EU. Things have changed, the mood has changed, people's views have changed. At the time of the EU referendum, UKIP had seven Members in this Assembly. They now have three. That is indicative of a movement that has collapsed, a moment in time that has gone, an idea that had no basis in reality.

Brexit is a dangerous fantasy that has thankfully been exposed at the eleventh hour. It is time to afford the public the same right we exercise in this Chamber every week—the right to change our minds. It is time to put it to the people.

I call on the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language, Eluned Morgan.

Llywydd, thank you to UKIP for the opportunity to respond to this debate. What's interesting about the motion before us today is that, rather than discussing the disorder surrounding Brexit at the moment, the motion focuses on history and basic principles of the European Union, and that gives me an opportunity to contradict the inconsistencies, the untruths and the misleading by UKIP about the European Union, which has led to the current systematic failure in our political system since the 2016 referendum. And I want to turn to each of the points addressed in the motion in turn.

It will give me great pleasure in this debate to highlight the contradictions, the half-truths, the misrepresentations that UKIP has constantly told about the EU and that are contained in this resolution. 

Let me start by looking at the fear that UKIP expressed about an ever-closer union in their resolution. Now, I think it's worth reminding ourselves that the European Union was forged following the disaster of the second world war, and a close union is in fact a commitment to peaceful co-existence, co-operation and co-determination. A bit more of that is what we should be looking for in our society at the moment. And the EU has been fantastically successful at constructing a Europe that is characterised by peaceful, if sometimes argumentative, co-operation rather than war and destruction. And it's no coincidence that the EU became a beacon of hope for the countries of central and eastern Europe, who suffered for so long under Russian dictators. And their principal aspiration after the fall of the Berlin wall was to join the organisation.

And can I also point out that far from being some sort of continental conspiracy foisted upon an unwilling and proud Britannia, the initiative for creating the organisation that grew to become the European Union drew inspiration from our own wartime leader, Winston Churchill? Churchill is regarded as one of the 11 founding fathers of the European Union. He, of course, was the founder of the United Europe Movement, and in 1946 he said,

'We must build a kind of United States of Europe…The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important…If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.'

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Yes.

Would she also accept that in that same speech Churchill said that Britain should not be part of that?

What he did in that speech was to make it clear that he was willing to work with the members of the Commonwealth, and I'm more than happy to make it clear that he said that they can't commit this country to entering the European Union without the agreement of other members of the British Commonwealth. And he said,

'no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.'

That's why he didn't make that commitment at that point. He made it later, and that was the reason he didn't make it then. And I think it's scandalous that UKIP commandeered Churchill's image to support their malicious campaign of disinformation in the run-up to the referendum almost three years ago.

Now, moving to the second point, I think it's untrue that the EU is somehow surreptitiously taking power away from member states without their consent. Under the Single European Act in 1986, the vast majority of decisions were made by unanimity. And any substantive changes to the treaties still require unanimity. But who was the architect to that move towards majority voting? None other than that second Brexiteer icon, Margaret Thatcher. And while it's true that qualified majority voting has expanded over the last 30 years, only a minority of the decisions made by the EU Council of Ministers are made other than by unanimity. And far from evidence of an unstoppable trend, there have been no further expansions in that area subject to majority voting since the Lisbon treaty in 2007. And, of course, it's simply not true to say that all power is concentrated in the hands of unelected institutions—I should know, I was there for 15 years as a Member of the European Parliament—and while the Council of Ministers also consists of Ministers each with their own accountability to their own legislatures. And as such, the Council of Ministers is no more undemocratic than the upper house of the German Parliament, the Bundesrat, which represents the Länder or the states in a constitution, which, again, was drawn up by the British in the wake of world war two.

And whilst it's true that the Commission is appointed, not directly elected, it's completely bizarre to see it as a relentless force, always moving in one direction. Of course, on the contrary, successive Commissions have reflected the dominant political culture of member states at different times, from the progressive, from Jacques Delors, to the much more laissez-faire approach of Jean-Claude Juncker. And if there is, indeed, a danger, as the fourth point of the motion puts it, that the UK will remain in the European Union despite the referendum result, the fault for this lies firstly with the approach of the Prime Minister—initially egged on by UKIP and the Brexiteers to simply ignore the views and the interests of the 48 per cent, and they didn't even attempt to work on a cross-party basis—and secondly with those who sold a false prospectus to the people by claiming our negotiations with the EU would be the easiest in history. Well, that's gone really well, hasn't it?

As for the view that remaining in the EU exposes us to ever closer integration against our will, of course the truth is somewhat different. If we leave, then it's true that there will be a change in the balance of power within the EU, and in some areas, for example military co-operation and closer regulation in the financial institutions, there are likely to be changes that the UK would have blocked or, at least, been uncomfortable with. But, as is becoming increasingly clear, unless we keep in close economic alignment with the EU, as huge swathes of our economy, above all our manufacturing base, depend on an integrated supply chain with the European Union and they are likely, then, to become uncompetitive. And keeping in close alignment with the EU means in practice accepting a large part of its regulatory systems, since, as we have seen in the negotiations to date, a market of 450 million has far more leverage than that of 65 million people. And it's a crowing irony in this Brexit debacle that, by leaving the EU, we'll have less control rather than more over the environment in which our businesses organise themselves. 

So, in conclusion, the motion is wholly misleading, wholly wrong-headed and it's no surprise that all three other parties in the Assembly have made amendments that start 'Delete all'. 

Now, it's also, I think, worth pointing out that Theresa May—. It's all very well her offering to stand down without a firm date—so we're not much further on, because we knew she was going before the next general election—but changing the leader won't change the substance of the debate. 

Now, in turning to the other amendments, it’s worth saying about the Conservatives that they are just like the party in Westminster, because they have nothing new to add.

Of course, in terms of Plaid Cymru, whilst the path that they propose is one that we as a Government can support—and I hope that they’ve noted that Labour has confirmed today that they will support a public vote as one of the options—it is worth highlighting that perhaps today isn’t the day to limit the possible options as the Commons tries to find a way of achieving wider support.

Llywydd, let me end by quoting Alexandre Dumas from The Three Musketeers, who might have been writing about our own slightly less dashing UKIP three musketeers with their fanatical obsession with fighting shadows and keeping the tarnished faith of the pure Brexit:

'In all times and all countries, especially in those countries which are divided within by religious faith, there are always fanatics who would be well contented to be regarded as martyrs.'

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, we've had a spirited and vigorous debate. We've heard complaints about the amount of abuse that is hurled around in this, and the loudest complainants seem to be no mean practitioners of the art of hurling abuse themselves—the Member for Blaenau Gwent, one of my favourites in this place, and the leader of Plaid Cymru, who has recently, of course, got into hot water for the epithets that he hurled at the First Minister himself. I think it's a shame that we do have personal abuse, but, as there's been a fair bit of it dumped onto UKIP in the course of this debate, I think I shall take the complaints with a pinch of salt, not least from another of my favourites, the Minister, who was particularly excoriating in the adjectives that she applied to us and the motives behind the motion. But, when somebody like Owen Smith, the Armani-suited Member of Parliament for Pontypridd, can tweet that the majority of his constituents who voted for Brexit are racists, xenophobes and right-wing reactionaries, then it's not for the Labour Party, I think, to complain about the language that is used in this debate today. 

We've also been told that the pro-Brexit campaign was founded upon lies. Well, truth is many-sided, as we know, and all election campaigns on both sides or all sides are characterised by distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentation and, yes, by outright lies. What about the 3 million jobs that we were going to lose if we even contemplated the prospect of leaving the EU, or the Treasury's own prediction that if the public had the temerity to vote for Brexit, let alone complete the process, then unemployment in this country would rise to 800,000 two years ago, since when, of course, it has halved and we now have the lowest levels of unemployment for 45 years.

I well remember when we were debating going into the European Union, as it now is, 50 years ago, we were told it was a common market and it was nothing to do with political union at all and that Britain had nothing to fear—it was no more really than a free trade area with a few bells and whistles. And I remember Edward Heath saying in order to get his majority—it got through by a majority of eight, actually, in the House of Commons on the crucial motion; I was there outside at the time; I remember it very vividly—he said that it was no intention of the Government of the day to take Britain into the European Economic Community, as it then was, without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people. Well, the people were never consulted because it wasn't in the Conservative manifesto, even in the 1970 election, and it was rammed through by the most ruthless whipping, as I said a moment ago, on a majority of eight in the crucial vote. There was never full-hearted consent, and that is why this debate has rumbled on for all these years. 

In the intervening period of time, of course, we've had numerous treaties which have enlarged the competence of the European institutions and have reduced the roles of national parliaments, therefore have increased the power of unelected technocrats at the expense of those who owe their positions to election by the people. And there's never been a referendum in Britain on any of those, in spite of the fact that it has, from time to time, been promised.

Let's look back to the Lisbon treaty itself, which was originally called the European constitution. If it's a European constitution, it gives the lie to the idea that the EU is never going to develop into some kind of federal superstate; that was the whole point of it in the first place. That's what Monnet and Schuman actually wanted back in the 1940s, but the people have never been allowed to have their say. And Gordon Brown promised a referendum and then he denied it to them, and the Conservatives have done exactly the same thing, until David Cameron was forced by UKIP, breathing down the necks of Tory MPs who feared losing their seats, to promise one, which eventually produced the reason why we're debating this today.

So, the founders of the EU, Monnet and Schuman, saw democracy as a problem, because in the 1930s dictators had managed to whip up emotions amongst the mob, and therefore they thought that if you allowed the people to decide on who had the levers of power in their hands, that that was a very bad thing and, therefore, democracy was a problem. It was a 1940s answer to a 1930s problem, and that's why the structure of the EU is as it is. We have an unelected commission that is appointed for five years, with a Council of Ministers that is very, very indirectly elected through the governmental systems of the individual member states, and there is no means of the people holding these to account, because it's a shifting membership all the time. We don't have elections for the whole of Europe. There is no way in which you can turf out the Government of the European Union, and that is why we've arrived at the place today where a majority of the British people want to leave the EU.

And it is the politicians who don't accept that who are causing the difficulties. Forty nine out of the 60 Members of this Assembly are remainers. Four hundred and eighty out of the 650 MPs are remainers, and it's because of their shenanigans trying to deny to the people of this country what they voted for by a majority just two and a half years ago that all the shot and shell that we hear about is taking place.

What we've discovered, I think, in the last couple of years, though, is the utter pointlessness of the Tory party as a vehicle to deliver Brexit. They triggered article 50 without a plan; they've done nothing since to prepare for life outside the EU; their nominal policy is to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European court; they've done nothing to build the infrastructure and facilities required by independent countries to manage their trade, and all that should have started in 2016—it hasn't started yet. We should have done all that by the time the article 50 process was completed. The article 50 process is effectively completed because we've had to ask for an extension, but absolutely nothing has been done by the Government of the day to prepare us for life outside the EU. So, yes, it would cost us more than it need do if we were to leave without a deal this week, but that is not the fault of Brexit; that is the fault of having a remainer Prime Minister with a remainer Cabinet in a remainer House of Commons, which has been determined to try to frustrate the will of the British people, and, yes, I do believe that that is a betrayal of the trust that the electorate has placed in them. I believe that the Prime Minister always intended this process to fail, and that's why she has not made those preparations.

Negotiations about a future trade deal should have started in 2016. They haven't even started three years later, and it's clear from the deal that we have paid £39 billion to be stuck in the EU indefinitely, with no voice, no vote, no veto, no unilateral freedom to leave. We are actually in a worse place than we were at the time that article 50 was triggered. It's a Carthaginian peace without a war, an unparalleled humiliation for Britain and a betrayal of Brexit. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, the eighth largest manufacturing country, we have English as a global language, London as the world's greatest financial centre, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU, we pay a huge amount in budgetary contributions, and the EU is shrinking as a force in world trade. I'm amazed—this is my last point I shall come to—that the Tory party in this place has deleted from our motion,

'Regrets that...the EU has taken power away from elected national parliaments', that it will not note that

'national vetoes in favour of majority voting' have become the order of the day within the EU, and that it doesn't accept that

'the European project is a relentless force, promoted by the EU’s permanent institutions' and it doesn't call

'on the UK Government to focus all efforts on reaching a free trade agreement'.

That tells you all you need to know about the Tory party as a vehicle for Brexit and as a party that has good intentions and good faith to deliver on what the British people voted for two and a half years ago, and I urge the Assembly therefore to vote for our motion this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

And that brings us to voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung.