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.