I thank the Member for a number of questions. I hope I manage to do justice to all of them. Just firstly in relation to the point that she opened with, around the statutory protection for devolved administrations in negotiations, she'll know from previous statements that I've made here, and the First Minister has made, that it's been a consistent theme of the Welsh Government's engagement with the UK Government in relation to this that we feel that, on the ongoing negotiations into the future, the Welsh Government, and the Scottish Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive, have a fundamental role to play.

The reference I made in my speech was a letter I sent in response to comments made by the Prime Minister at the despatch box on Friday, where she committed to giving a statutory footing to the negotiations of the political declaration itself—not the future negotiations more broadly. The Member will know that, about a week or 10 days ago, I made a statement, and wrote to David Lidington and Stephen Barclay in the UK Government, proposing language that could be used by way of amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill, which would do that job, which would provide Parliament with oversight, but also provide a role for the devolved institutions in the reform of the declaration itself. Having heard the Prime Minister and Attorney General give a commitment to some of that, I felt it was important to seek a commitment to the balance of it, which is the reason that I wrote.

She refers to the inter-governmental agreement. She will perhaps recall that the purpose of the inter-governmental agreement was indeed to secure a significant number of statutory concessions. And it is that inter-governmental agreement that has enabled frameworks to be developed between the administrations in the UK, on a way that has, by and large, been very productive. She—and her colleagues, perhaps, prior to her joining the house—routinely used to say that it was a mechanism for taking powers away. I have yet to hear a single power enumerated in that list of powers taken away; the very simple reason for that is because there aren't any.

In relation to the votes in the House of Commons last night, I was hoping to have made it clear in my statement that the Clarke amendment, when taken together with other commitments that the Prime Minister has subsequently made, would need to be together taken into account in a reformed political declaration. I welcome the tone with which her parliamentary colleague last night engaged in the votes around this, and made a particular point of advocating 'Securing Wales' Future' as principles that Plaid Cymru still endorse, and I welcome that continued commitment, even in the House of Commons.

She mentioned the comments made by Keir Starmer around the interpretation of the European Court of Justice's decision in Wightman, which is the relevant case here. The judgment is clear: that the revocation needs to be unequivocal and unconditional, and that it isn't a mechanism by which a member state can simply pause the article 50 process. And the reason for that is obvious, isn't it? There is a mechanism in the legislation that gives other member states the power to consent or not. If a member could simply exercise that right independently, that would drive a coach and horses through other member states' rights. So, it's not surprising that that is the conclusion of the court.

And I will simply echo, if I may, the comments the First Minister made earlier in the Chamber: this is not the time at which a decision of such constitutional magnitude can possibly be made. In the final analysis, there may be a different conclusion around that, but at this point in time, we haven't reached that moment of decision where the alternatives are revocation or no deal.