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

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate: a confirmatory European Union referendum, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion. Delyth. 

Motion NDM7059 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales declares its unequivocal support for a confirmatory referendum on whatever terms proposed by any Prime Minister that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, with remain on the ballot paper.

Motion moved.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today's debate promises to be a lively one. It's an issue on which nearly everyone has a strong feeling that they are right, and the stakes could not be higher. The motion before us calls on this place to declare its unequivocal support for a confirmatory referendum. Yes, we have called for unambiguous, uncouched in potential circumstance, clarity, because, goodness knows, the policies of the main Westminster parties have been a little confused of late, tacked together with tape to mask the deep division in their own ranks on this most divisive of issues. We welcome the Welsh Government's change of policy in support of a second referendum, come what may. It's the only way of untangling the Brexit knot. 

I've mentioned that Brexit is divisive; of course it is. It is difficult, and I understand why this issue is mired in tribulation for many elected representatives. But it is crucial that we think and do what is best for our constituents, not what is politically convenient. I recognise too why thousands of my constituents voted to leave, because of the apparent opportunity to take back control. That slogan resonated but it was cynical—cynical because it was untrue. The exact opposite has, in fact, happened, with events spiralling out of everyone's control—Westminster included. That misleading mantra promised an alternative to the frankly dire situation too many of my constituents are in, but the riches they were promised on the side of a bus will never reach them; we know that.

The problems people face are not as a result of the EU, they're the result of the actions of the Westminster Government, negligence towards left-behind communities on one hand, and deliberately cruel policies targeting vulnerable individuals on the other. The hardship that people face is a result of the cuts, not the continent. Even many Brexiteer commentators have long since given up claiming that the UK's poorest communities will benefit from Brexit; it's now all about sovereignty or, to be more precise, the illusion of sovereignty. But in what guise does sovereignty entail losing control of our NHS, as Donald Trump has made clear it will have to be on the table in return for a trade deal?  

We are faced with a future where the next leader of the Tory party could very well be ready to throw our economy—my constituents' livelihoods—under that infamous bus in order to become Prime Minister. Most worryingly, there is a creeping, nefarious tendency amongst more and more advocates of Brexit, including the majority of conservative leadership hopefuls, to say that no deal is not only acceptable, not only falsely that people voted for it in 2016, which they did not, but also that no deal wouldn't be all that bad, really. I find it distasteful that Members here or in Westminster would claim that no deal would mean anything other than catastrophe and destitution for some of my constituents. This is not a parlour game. It is not a blinking contest. It will affect people's lives. So, we will support the Labour amendment, and it will come as a surprise to no-one that we will not be supporting the other amendments. 

Those who advocated leaving the EU have had one opportunity after another to deliver on the result, but when it came to the crunch, they had nothing to bring to the table except empty rhetoric, so they resigned instead. They've had their chance and they've failed, leaving us with no choice but to revisit the original decision, but this time knowing what's at stake, including our NHS. It is a far cry from the £350 million a week that was promised.

Llywydd, one of the most worrying newspeak-esque sentiments that is parroted now is that having a second vote would be undemocratic. I cannot fathom how anyone can claim that putting a vote to the people undermines democracy. It is a contradiction in terms. Let me remind Members in this Chamber: a second vote would still involve a choice and people will be free to campaign for either side.

I remain very concerned at how Brexit has poisoned debate—name calling, shouting from a sedentary position, jeering. Society is also divided and a referendum alone will not be enough to heal those divisions. I know that. That will involve a far more inclusive, cross-party, cross-community effort. But a referendum is a necessary step along this path, because every other scenario facing us is worse.

The result of the 2016 referendum delivered a narrow win for a flawed, possibly criminally negligent campaign that made promises to the people I represent that will never be fulfilled. Worse, the people who made those claims knew this. They didn't care, so we have come to this. Members on the other side of this argument often talk about respecting democracy. Well, democracy is a constant, it is not a fixed moment. The most democratic thing is to give the people a final say; to pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

There is still time to step back from the brink, to protect the £245 million Wales receives every year from being in the EU, time to protect our industries, time to reaffirm workers' rights, time to take the path that offers the best and brightest future for Wales and our citizens by choosing to remain in the EU. It is not too late. I urge Members to support the motion and to allow the people of Wales the opportunity to make that choice. 

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. And if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Mark Reckless to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Mark Reckless. 

Amendment 1—Caroline Jones

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales;

1. Recognises that it has been nearly three years since the people of Wales voted to leave the EU and that we are no closer to fulfilling their wishes.

2. Regrets that despite the UK Government spending £9m on a leaflet promising to abide by the results of the referendum and the majority of MPs elected in 2017 standing on manifestos that promised to deliver Brexit, MPs from both main parties have sought to prevent the UK from leaving the EU.

3. Calls on the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to carry out the wishes of the people and leave the EU no later than the 31 October 2019.

Amendment 1 moved.

I move amendment 1, tabled by Caroline Jones. So, we've heard from Delyth that the referendum was a result of the cuts not the continent. I wonder if that might be a soundbite that could be quoted after the debate, because she's looked into her tea leaves and she knows how the people of our region have voted, why they voted. She sees into their minds and she knows better than them—[Interruption.]—what is in their interests. 

Will you take an intervention?

I'd be delighted. 

I'm actually from the region that I represent and I also worked for Citizens Advice when the referendum was held, so I can understand quite a lot why people did actually vote to take back control.  

I thank the Member for saying that. At least she didn't call me a visitor. The fact is people decided. They voted in a referendum. They voted by 52 per cent to 48 across the United Kingdom as a whole, slightly more in Wales, and significantly more in our region. But she thinks she knows best. She wants to ignore them. And her party promised to accept the result of that referendum, just as Labour promised to accept it. Now, it may be that Plaid changed their position a little earlier and a little more firmly than Labour did, but Labour have now caught up and they are in the same place again as a 'remain' establishment. 

Now, back when we had this joint White Paper, which they always refer to as if they've had a constant policy—it didn't say anything about a referendum. It tried to put forward a sort of Brexit-in-name-only sort of version, but it didn't say, 'If you don't do this, then we've got to make you vote again.' No, they still purported to accept the result of the referendum, as at least did Labour in that 2017 general election. However, the reality is that they do not. They think they—[Interruption.] No. Thank you. They think they know better than the people they purport to represent, and they say now it should be a confirmatory referendum. Of course, it used to be a 'second referendum' but apparently that didn't poll terribly well so they then called it a 'people's vote', but that was so transparently ludicrous they've now moved on to 'confirmatory referendum'. It sounds very easy, doesn't it? Like, you know, let's just confirm what we decided—not a big deal. But, of course, it's not intended to confirm the referendum, it's intended to reverse it. And when she says, 'Oh, people will be able to campaign—there'll be a choice'—actually, to look at the Plaid motion, it appears to be a choice between remaining in the European Union and whatever Brexit-in-name-only deal is negotiated to put against it—what I think I described a few years back to David Cameron as an 'in-in referendum'. But the people of Wales, the people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave. So, that's why, in our amendment, we delete the Plaid motion and we firstly recognise that it's been three years since the people of Wales voted. And there's been very little, if any, movement towards delivering the results. But, of course, that's the intention of so many in this Assembly, just as with so many in Westminster. They hope that, by playing for time, letting time go on and on, then they can say, 'Oh, it's a long time ago; we can ignore it now.' That is their strategy.

Now, in a referendum, where the 'remain' side vastly outspent the 'leave' side, let us not forget, in addition, the Government put out a leaflet, booklet—£9 million; it came a bit later to us because of our Assembly elections—which said that they would implement the result: what you the people decide, the Government will implement the result. But the reality is that the Government hasn't implemented the result. Now, some Conservatives may regret that; others have intended it. And I suspect the current, thankfully outgoing, Prime Minister may be in that category. Now, others who are competing for that position—they say, at least some of them, that they're going to leave on 31 October. Others say they won't; perhaps they might by the end of 2020. Perhaps they won't ever. So, Boris Johnson says, whether with or without a deal, he'll leave on 31 October, but 100 times and more Theresa May said that. That's the position that 550 or so MPs voted for when they put through article 50, yet so many of them now try and reverse that result.

So, we call on the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to carry out the wishes of the people and to leave the EU no later than 31 October 2019. That is, to respect democracy, we must ensure in our country that the people who respect democracy win over those who wish to block Brexit and deny democracy.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 2, tabled in his name.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

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

2. Believes that the outcome of referendums should always be implemented.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say, it feels a little bit like groundhog day every time I get up in here for one of these debates, because, yet again, we are discussing a Plaid Cymru motion that is seeking to have another vote in order to overturn the outcome of the first one. But let's not forget that 17.4 million people in the UK, the biggest mandate for anything in British political history, voted to leave the European Union. Carmarthenshire voted to leave. Anglesey voted to leave. Rhondda Cynon Taf voted to leave. I know it's an inconvenience for some of you on those benches, but they voted to leave. Yet, their Plaid Cymru Assembly Members repeatedly come to this Chamber looking for ways to undermine democracy and to overturn the will of their own voters, because they believe that politicians know better than the people and that, despite a clear majority wanting to leave, the Welsh political establishment claims to know better and wants to keep Wales in the EU.

Now, last week, we saw the Brexit Party win two of the four Welsh seats in the European Parliament, topping the poll in 19 out of the 22 Welsh local authority areas with 32.5 per cent of the vote for the pro-Brexit stance that they took. And I believe that that's a clear message. It's a clear message to all of us in this Chamber—

Will you take an intervention?

—and all of us to get on with it. Yes, I'll happily take an intervention.

I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention. I can understand why you would draw a conclusion from the results in that way. How about adding up the unequivocally pro-remain parties and saying that that is an unequivocal vote in favour of staying in the European Union?

I'll come to that now. Let's not forget this: 32.5 per cent gives Brexit bigger legitimacy than this Welsh Government, which was elected in 2016 with just 31.5 per cent of the vote in Wales. But, as we've heard from you and from other people, coming first in an election apparently doesn't count for very much because, when you add up the combined votes of all those who lost those elections, you've got more votes. Now, on that logic, you could draw all sorts of strange conclusions about everything. So, I read that Mark Reckless was the tallest person in this Chamber to have been elected. Now, if that is the case, of course, he's not really the tallest if you follow your logic, because if you add up everybody in the Plaid group, you're taller than him. I mean, that's a ridiculous logic to take—

Will you take an intervention?

—but that is your logic. Yes, I'll happily take the intervention.

In terms of when we were elected, I suspect the Member may have forgotten Nathan Gill.

Yes. He's a former Member, of course. I was talking about existing Members. 

Now, there are some—. Let's follow the logic again: there are some Members in this Chamber who I want to congratulate on having celebrated 20 continuous years of service in this National Assembly, the longest of any of us here, but, of course, when you add up the combined service of the other Assembly Members, it's longer than those before. [Interruption.] This is your logic. This is your logic. [Interruption.] Yes, I'll happily take an intervention. 

Thank you very much. Very, very briefly: don't you think you're making a mockery of a very, very serious debate?

You're making a mockery of democracy. We gave the people of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom the opportunity to have their say. They were told it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to have their say on whether they wanted to stay or leave the European Union. They were told explicitly by the remain campaign—. They were given all sorts of 'facts'. They were told that the stock market would crash if they voted to come out. They were told that we'd go into an immediate recession, that our unemployment rate would spiral out of control. And yet the economy's still growing, unemployment is still coming down, and our stock market is still climbing. That is the reality.

Now, we know that there's been a change of heart. We know that there's been a change of heart. To be fair to the First Minister of Wales, he's looked at these results and he's trying to cobble together something that he thinks can save them from the impending doom that they have in terms of the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn by calling for a second referendum. I understand that there may be some logic in wanting to avoid Jeremy Corbyn continuing to be leader of your party. I understand that. But you can't claim to be respecting the outcome of the referendum in any way if you're a person who advocates a second referendum that is a rerun of the first, with 'remain' on the ballot sheet, because that is what you are trying to do. Now, to be fair, we've got a long history in this country of respecting the outcome of referendums, okay. We really have. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, when they lost the alternative vote referendum, they respected that result. They didn't call for another referendum to be held. I'll happily take an intervention.

I'm very grateful to the Member. Does he remember that his party, for eight years between 1997 and 2005, had a policy of calling for a second referendum on devolution in Wales?

I have never called for a second referendum. [Interruption.] I have never called for a second referendum, and the reality is—[Interruption.] And the reality is that this National Assembly's referendum on its establishment was implemented, quite rightly, by the Government of the day. And, of course, we all accepted—we all accepted—the result of our own referendum on law-making powers back in 2011. You can't simply call for another vote because you don't like the outcome. Now, I heard the leader of Plaid Cymru last week—he's not here today—calling for a remainers alliance to be established. If you want to work together to campaign for remain, of course, you've missed the boat, because there's not going to be another referendum, I hope, not in my lifetime, on this particular issue. And that's why I urge everybody who respects democracy to reject this ridiculous motion from Plaid Cymru and to support our amendment, which makes it clear that the outcome of referendums should always be implemented when we put these questions to the people.

I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to move formally amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 3—Rebecca Evans

After 'ballot paper' insert 'and re-iterates its view that a ‘no deal’ Brexit would be a disastrous and wholly unacceptable outcome.'

Amendment 3 moved.

Formally.

The problem I have, of course, is it’s not clear at all what Brexit actually meant, what kind of Brexit people could expect after the referendum, and so there was a vacuum. During the campaign, and certainly since the campaign, every Brexiteer has projected their version of Brexit onto the ballot paper that people were marking in the polling stations. There were all sorts of different Brexits, and everyone claiming that it was their Brexit that won out in the referendum. I was thinking the other day—how many Brexits have we heard about? There’s a soft Brexit, a hard Brexit, there’s a Brexit with an agreement, there's a Brexit—[Interruption.]

No, I won't, because I've got a lot to get in. Try again later on, all right? [Laughter.]

A soft Brexit, a hard Brexit, a Brexit with an agreement, a 'no deal' Brexit, a free market Brexit— there's a protectionist Brexit—

—open Brexit, there's a xenophobic Brexit, the Canada option, Norway plus, Ukraine option, Swiss option, Turkey option. I'm told there's a Tory Brexit somewhere. There's certainly an ERG Brexit. There's a Corbyn Brexit, there's a UKIP Brexit, there's a Brexit Party Brexit, there's a 'red, white and blue' Brexit, apparently, and a 'Brexit means Brexit' Brexit. [Laughter.] But it reminds me of what Clinton said, you know—'The people have spoken; it's just that we're not sure what they said', and that's my fundamental problem. [Interruption.] Yes, I will. Go on, then. I can have a breather, then.

Isn't this, isn't exactly that, the problem with referendums with simple questions?

Listen, and I'll refer you to the Scottish referendum on independence. There was a 700-page White Paper sat behind that ballot paper that told people exactly what they could expect if they voted for independence in Scotland. All we had with Brexit was a slogan on the side of a bus, and, of course, those responsible for that slogan are now being summoned to appear before a court just to justify that figure.

Now, I want to refer—. Oh, I have got a bit of time, so I'm not panicking yet. I just want to refer to some of the statements that were made, and Darren—you know, Darren pointed to some dubious statements that were made. Well, I can point to others as well. Remember Daniel Hannan MEP? He's still an MEP I think, is he? He's one of the few that's still a Tory MEP.

'Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market', he said before the referendum. Now, absolutely everybody is doing that—you know, it was an absolute lie. Liam Fox, of course, on the infamous free trade agreement—'the easiest in human history'. And if we want to reflect on some of the dog whistle politics that we got during that referendum campaign, health tourism—do you remember the way that people told us that people travelling to the UK are coming solely to benefit from our generous health system? A total fabrication, because British citizens in the EU receive five times the value of the treatment that we give to EU citizens here. And, of course, we know that our NHS and care services would practically be dysfunctional if we lost a lot of those overseas workers who come to this country to work for us.

And Delyth referred to the mantra of 'take back control', and I totally agree—yes, it chimed with millions of people. Quite rightly, they felt disenfranchised and anxious about their futures, but it wasn't, as far as I'm concerned, the lack of control over the EU that was the issue there, it was the lack of control over a Westminster programme of austerity set by George Osborne and the Conservative Government in London. So, all sorts of versions of Brexit and all sorts of dubious promises made.

And I will just briefly refer particularly to the agricultural sector. You ask Welsh farmers now about the prospect of losing their basic payment—. As deficient maybe as CAP was and is, you ask them about losing that stability and security whilst the rest of Europe and, of course, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as I was referring to yesterday, are retaining that, and I'm sure they would have something to tell you.

Only today the National Audit Office has said that DEFRA risks having its agriculture budget cut by the Treasury if it can't guarantee a high take-up of its new environmental land management scheme. Now, that doesn't happen in relation to CAP. If you don't spend all your money, it's still there and you can spend it later on. So, when new facts emerge, when the new reality becomes clear, I think people are entitled to change their minds and I think that putting this back to the people is fully justified.

Aneurin Bevan once said that

'we know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down.'

Sadly for my party, that's exactly what happened in the European elections last Thursday. Our failure to grasp the nettle on the most important issue of our times left the door open to a ragbag of opportunists, zealots and charlatans. If there was one thing that did unite that unholy bunch, it was the ability to rally around a single campaign message in the pursuit of victory. It was a brutal political reminder that, whilst it is one thing to be nuanced in the drafting of policy, when it comes to the drafting of history, we simply must be bold.

Members in this Chamber will know all too well my views on the issue of Brexit; my stance is honest and consistent, based entirely on the interests of my constituents. And while I was bitterly disappointed that it took those results for my party to change our approach, I am now only interested in working together for the future, not in rehashing battles gone by. Now is not the time to point fingers; now is the time to unite and to fight on behalf of our communities in Wales. This is a moment of national emergency and nobody in Government or opposition who believes we need to act to confront it should be thinking of party advantage over national interest. Because the other thing that the European elections showed is that there is now no majority for Brexit in Wales or the UK, and, above all, there is no mandate for a 'no deal'.

I therefore warmly welcome the commitment from the First Minister not only to fight for a second referendum but for the guarantee that we will be unequivocal in our support for 'remain' in that campaign. There are no immediate elections for us to concern ourselves with now, no narrow political gains to calculate, just a mountain to climb. Just as those of you in this Chamber know how strong my views have been over these last three years, you will also know that, when it comes to matters of principle, I am, like so many others of us here, ready to work across party lines. For those of us who passionately believe that we must go back to the country, for those of us who know how damaging Brexit will be to Wales, it is time to leave our partisan colours at the door and work together on a 'final say' campaign.

Only this week it was reported that the UK manufacturing sector contracted for the first time since July 2016, as stockpiling eased ahead of Brexit. The research said that firms found difficulty convincing clients to commit to new contracts. We've already had too many examples of companies no longer ready to put up with the risk of what Brexit might mean for them. Businesses kept expecting politicians to make the best of a bad situation. Until now, we've only made matters worse—that has to change. And, as if we needed any more clues as to what our post-Brexit future might look like, then we have been provided with them in spades this week through the visit of the US President. As Sadiq Khan has said, Donald Trump is not just here to spread his hateful views and tweet childish insults, he's here because he wants a post-Brexit trade deal with Britain that would force us to agree to anything he wants. It would mean handing over our beloved NHS to private US healthcare firms and abandoning food safety— 

Will the Member give way?

In a sec.

—and animal welfare standards in exchange for chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. And he is openly backing Boris Johnson to deliver this for him.

Briefly, Mark.

I wonder if the Member noticed the President's remarks today that he didn't expect the NHS to be part of any trade deal.

I did. I did notice the President's remarks today, but I don't believe him and I don't think anybody else here does either.

Now, there is no part of that equation that sits easily with me, least of all the last part. The only thing that could have made this situation worse is a Conservative Party leadership contest that is increasingly becoming a hard Brexit measuring contest. Only the Tories could design a process of measuring their machoness by way of ruining other people's livelihoods. They want to turn their party into a Nigel Farage tribute act, but I have words too for those Conservatives who are horrified by this, and I know that that includes AMs sitting here today—not looking at you, Nick Ramsay. [Laughter.]

I'm glad no-one noticed that. [Laughter.]

The country has had enough of being held to ransom by an intra-party melodrama on Europe. We know that the promises made for Brexit can't be met, we know the public was lied to, there are real costs to leaving—to our economy, our NHS and our safety—and forcing Brexit through won't provide certainty about where we're going. Whether you want to stay in the EU or leave, there is only one way to break the Brexit deadlock, and that is to respect the people and give the people a final say.

Well, of course, I was one of those who campaigned to remain, but, when we had lost, I accepted the result. I, at the time, was working for a youth work charity and I experienced directly the distress and anger of many, many young people at the result. At that time, we worked with them, advocating acceptance, trying to deal with their emotional distress and attempting to work to influence the nature of what Brexit might look like—for example, retaining the UK's place in the Erasmus programme that's been so important.

It isn't very often in this place that I admit to naivety, Llywydd, but I have to say that I thought there was a plan. Now, given the people who were advocating Brexit, I should have known better, because there clearly wasn't one. I assumed that the people who wanted this to happen would know the nature of it, and my colleague Llyr Gruffydd has just told us of the multicoloured Brexit nonsense that we've had ever since. So, I did accept the result of this referendum because I think, in principle, that was the right thing to do, but I thought by this time—[Interruption.] And please, can I just say this? I am quite happy to accept interventions, but I find it difficult to speak properly when I have people making comments from the floor. So, if any Member who disagrees with me or indeed agrees with me would like to make an intervention, I'm very open to doing that, but, please, the way we treat each other in this place ought to be with respect, and so let's listen to one another, even when we disagree.

So, I was prepared to accept it, assuming that there would be some kind of plan, that there would be things we could put in place perhaps to mitigate some of the worst effects, and three years on, everything is completely different. There is no plan, or there is a wide range of different plans, and other colleagues have already pointed out some of the consequences that have come to light.

Now, colleagues here have said that we don't know why people voted the way they did. Well, in fact, that isn't true. There's been extensive academic research looking into why people voted 'yes' and why people voted 'no', and we know, as other colleagues have said, that that powerful message about taking back control was one that very understandably resonated sometimes with people in communities who felt that their lives were out of control. Of course, what we've seen since is the absolute opposite of any kind of control, with the people advocating Brexit unable to tell us what it ought to look like, unprepared, perhaps, to be honest. And many colleagues, as I've said, have highlighted the huge potential risks and the current threat that has come to light again this week to our health service—what was offered as the golden deal. The trade deal with the NHS is just one of dozens and dozens of examples that we could cite.

So, we do know that people had good reasons for voting the way that they did, and we also know, because there's ongoing extensive research, that many of them have changed their minds. One group of the population that hasn't changed its mind is young people. Three years ago, 18 to 24-year-olds voted 71 per cent to remain and 29 per cent to leave. Now, it is their future—many of us won't be here to see the long-term consequences of particularly what a 'no deal' Brexit would mean, but it is their future that is hanging in the balance.

I think today of all days it's also very important to remember the other group of the population that voted overwhelmingly to remain, and that was those of our fellow citizens who remembered the second world war, who remembered the genesis of the European Community—whatever its faults, and there are none of us here who think that institution as it is, I'm sure, is perfect—but that generation, our parents' generation, who knew what that conflict was like stood with the young people and voted roughly 70 per cent to 30 per cent to remain. Now—

Will the Member give way?

I will, indeed.

Where on earth does that come from? Broadly, in the referendum, the older people were, the higher the proportion for 'leave'. The idea that people who were there at the war voted by 70 per cent to remain—what on earth is your source for that claim?

That is established academic research. Mark Reckless is quite right to say that over-30s—people between the age of 30 and the age of 75—tended to vote to leave. That very elderly group of people who had actually lived through the war as adults voted to remain—

Will the Member give way again?

—and I will happily send him the academic link.

I do actually recall seeing one thing where the amount voting 'leave' was going up as people got older, and among the very, very oldest—and it was a very small sample—the 'leave' vote was very slightly less than it had been for the group a little younger, but it was very strongly to leave.

It was not in that group, and I will, if he wishes—though he doesn't often want to have information that doesn't agree with his perspective—happily share it with him.

So, Members here have talked a lot about democracy and they are, of course, quite right to do so. The campaign group For our Future's Sake estimate that over 92,000 young people have reached the age of majority—have reached the age where they have the right to vote here in Wales, and it's an inexact figure because people do move in and out. Those 92,000 young people now, in my view, have a right to have a say about what happens next.

We should honour the generation who did not want to see another risk of conflict, and we should honour the generation who want to see a future as part of the European family. I urge Members to support this motion today.

I believe that this is an absolutely fundamental question facing us as a country and as a nation at the moment. For whatever the reasons, and without wishing to go into the last campaign too deeply this afternoon, it's clear that what has happened since then has not reflected what was promised before that vote. I think the one thing that would unite many of us on all sides of this Chamber is that the last three years have represented probably the worst of politics that we have seen. Some of the things that I have witnessed both online and in real life, if I might say so, have absolutely appalled me and distressed me. I'm somebody who is quite happy to take part in robust debate, in this place and elsewhere, but the nature of our politics over the last few years has, I think, let down the people, the country and let down the future.

It is clear to me and my reading of where we are today that there is absolute gridlock in our politics, and that gridlock shows no prospect of being resolved. It is unlikely to change as a consequence of the election campaign taking place within the Conservative Party. It is unlikely to be resolved by a general election. I do not believe that we should leave without a deal. That would be an extraordinary act of sacrifice, which is at odds with the country that we are, at odds with our history and at odds with our culture. I do not believe that we have any alternative but to extend article 50 to allow a referendum to take place, to allow us to begin the process of healing in this country. 

Because when we look at what has happened over these last few years, what we have seen is the principle of consent being taken away from us. Consent is an important principle in any democracy, but consent cannot be a coerced consent or a consent based on a deceit. It has to be a freely given and an informed consent. Over the last few years, we have seen the people who funded and were behind the 'leave' campaign face investigation after investigation. Fines have been levied, and we know the work of people like Cambridge Analytica, who have used dirty data in a way that is beyond the laws that we currently have and beyond the regulators that currently exist. The consent that was given three years ago by the people of this country is something that has been abused by the people who sought that consent. In doing so, they undermine not only the referendum that they themselves believe should be upheld, but they also undermine our democracy and our democratic institutions.

Our democratic institutions have suffered more abuse than I can remember in a lifetime, and I lived through the 1980s, which was a pretty rumbustious time if you were a young student on the left. But let me say this: when Nigel Farage describes Parliament Square as 'enemy territory', what on earth—what on earth does that say about somebody who demands a return of our sovereignty in a parliamentary democracy? And when national newspapers are able to describe our judiciary as 'enemies of the people', what does that say about recognising and respecting our democracy in this country? What it tells us is that those people do not respect our democracy. They do not care for our democracy. They care for undermining the very institutions that uphold our civilisation in this society. It is a political campaign, which is to undermine those things that we hold dear.

It began to unravel, of course, with President Trump telling the truth—before he was told not to—earlier this week. We have been able to see, over the last few years, that the will of the people is not to move forward in a way that was described some years ago. I hope that we can reset our politics and that we can conduct our public debate in this country without the intolerance, the prejudice, the bigotry, and even the violence and threats of violence that we've seen, the dark money, the foreign interference. The attempt to break our democracy and our democratic institutions is something that we must all stand together to, I hope, ensure that we will, over the next few years, be able to win an argument, not simply for a referendum, which I hope will provide a result upon which we can create firm foundations for a just society—a society that is a tolerant society, a society that, 75 years ago, people were fighting to preserve.

And when we remember the sacrifices of the 1940s, let us also remember what Her Majesty reminded us of earlier this week: that the 1940s led to more multilateralism and not less. It led to the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions. It led to the creation of the United Nations. It led to the creation, eventually, of the European Union. It led to all those institutions of international order that seek to preserve peace and to increase prosperity and justice for all of those people. Let us not simply win a vote in a second referendum, but let us win an argument for a very different sort of society in the future. Thank you.

Delyth Jewell opened her speech with the words that people have a strong feeling they are right on this topic. One of the things I'd say is that, from my point of view, there's a very clear and answerable economic question and a security question about the European Union—that 'remain' is best. But you could also say that the question of power distance, and the question of the democratic deficit of the structures of the European Union, are not answered, and therefore you can say that there is—. You cannot say that everyone who argues for 'leave' is unquestionably wrong. I think the question is to what extent you're balancing the economic and the security case against the case of the democratic deficit and power distance.

Just to clarify on that, I said that I think that almost everyone on this issue believes that they are right, because it's something that they hold so strongly. I'm not necessarily making a comment about that.

Okay. I wasn't insinuating you were, and I believe I'm right about that.

But the issue is, on balance, I'm not as certain as my colleagues. On balance, I think 'remain' is the right action for this country, and I've always thought that, but the problem here I think comes down to the issue of how we do our democracy—how our democracy works. When the Speaker of the House of Commons calls a vote, he shouts the word 'division'—very loudly—and the House of Commons divides. The whole point of the House of Commons is that it divides. When we hold a vote here we are dividing. And that is the point of having a vote. But the reason we divide is so that the country doesn't have to, and if people are angry with us for the choices we make when we divide, they have the opportunity then to take that out on us at election time, when they can vote for someone who divided in the way they wanted them to.

The problem with the referendum is that it puts the responsibility for that division on the people of the country, and once that division has taken place, it is incredibly difficult then to bring the country back together afterwards. Following an election, those on the losing side will still have a voice in the Parliament to which they voted. So, following an election, if you voted Conservative, as Darren Millar will next time—when he loses he will know that he will have a voice at Westminster and he will continue—well, hopefully or hopefully not—to represent his constituents in this Chamber. People will still have a voice. And no-one says during a debate, 'Sit down; you lost'. I've heard that shouted across the Chamber at Alun Davies from Mark Reckless: 'Sit down; you lost', when referring to the referendum. And Alun Davies equally shouts back his own insults that he chooses to use. But the fact is—[Interruption.] I'm defending you now. But the fact is—[Interruption.] I'm not taking an intervention from either of you. You can both sit down and listen to me. But the fact is the referendum takes this outside to the country and then enables politicians to tell other politicians who are democratically elected to be quiet.

The other problem with a referendum is that it simplifies choices. It simplifies choices to the point of absurdity—'yes' or 'no'. In real life, in real politics, every choice we make has a consequence for someone else. Every single decision we make in this Chamber has a consequence for someone else. We are not being honest with people if we say to them, 'When you vote in a referendum, your choice will be honoured and that will be the end of it, and everything will be okay'. The mechanism of a referendum doesn't allow that. [Interruption.]

If I can have some extra time from the Llywydd I'm happy to take an intervention.

I'm grateful to the Member for taking an intervention. I actually have a lot of sympathy with your point about referendums generally. It is very difficult to put complex issues that way. But in the situation that we're in at the moment, we're not in a position where Parliament can resolve this. Parliament has had three years to try and resolve it, and because of the big gaps between the remainers and leavers in the Conservatives, and the remainers and leavers in your own party at Westminster, we can't use a general election, which would be the obvious way to solve this, so there is really no choice, is there?

I don't think Plaid Cymru are full of remainers entirely, either. Yes, I agree. The reason I'm willing to support this motion today, after much thought, is because of that point. We are at an impasse. The only other option to a second vote would be no deal, I think, at this point, and that is why I'm saying we probably do need to support this.

By the way, one thing I'd say about Gareth Bennett—Neil Hamilton's gone and Gareth Bennett's not here—he's promising, in his pitch for the leadership of UKIP, that he will have a referendum in every parliamentary term. God forbid we end up in that position. What's going to be next? Capital punishment? Perhaps we'll have a referendum on that. There's a simple choice for you—there's no unintended consequences there. I think the problem is our democracy is broken. I haven't been a strong advocate of proportional representation in the past and I regret that, because I think the only way we're going to make a way forward in the future and enable us not to need referenda in the future is by having a properly proportional voting system at Westminster and in this Chamber, so that then we don't need referenda. Now, people in Plaid Cymru are nodding. I would also say, if you have that, and if you can command through a proportional system more than 50 per cent of the vote, you can put your core policy forward and ask for that to put forward. So, let's take Welsh independence. We won't need a referendum on Welsh independence if you can command 50 per cent of the Chamber to support it, and then put it forward in a further Assembly or Welsh Parliamentary election. We will never need a referendum ever again, and Llyr said—

Will you take an intervention?

I really am out of time and I probably don't want to get into that rabbit hole right now. But the point I'm making is our democracy is not functioning. The only way through right now, reluctantly, is a referendum. But we need to look at this. We need to think how we can repair our democracy. There is a way forward, and that way forward is reforming our electoral system.

I'm rather reluctant to follow on from the last person to speak because he said so many good and right things before I even stand on my feet. And I congratulate you on the way that you delivered that, Hefin.

So, the 2016 European Union membership referendum, to give it its correct name, asked the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland if they wanted to leave or remain in the EU. I think we should be mindful that the people of the UK were never actually asked if they wanted to be members of a European Union. We were only asked if we wanted to join a common market. And if, as you say, there were lies on the side of a bus, perhaps even that, if it was a lie, pales into insignificance when you think of the lies that actually took us into Europe. We were told there would never be a loss of sovereignty; no loss of supremacy of our British courts; never to be asked to go into a single currency; no loss of our fishing grounds. I could go on with many, many more of the lies that were told us to take us into the European Union.

Although legally the referendum was non-binding, the Government at the time promised to implement the result. The fiasco that followed showed that our politicians' words are of no real value. Brexiteers are being blamed for the division that now clearly exists in the UK population, but it is the remainers' non-acceptance of the democratic referendum that has caused the divide, and surely it is the rhetoric of remainers that is poisoning the debate as we have recently witnessed with the deposed leader of Plaid sharing a post that likens Brexiteers to Nazis. She is, of course, not referring to the Brexit Party in this post, but to all the people—

Are you taking an intervention?

Will you take an intervention?

—who voted Brexit. No, I’ve heard enough of your rhetoric.

You lied. You're telling lies about me. [Inaudible.]

I have heard enough of your poisonous rhetoric today, thank you.

Point of order?

Point of order, Leanne Wood.

The Member has made a lie about what I've said. The Daily Mail made up a headline about what I said—

No, no, no—

You may choose to believe what you read in—

I saw the post—

You may choose to believe what you read in the Daily Mail—

You've posted, you've posted—

—but it's bull.

On a point of order, the Member has just said that he lied. That is out of order. 

David Rowlands, do you want to continue your contribution?

The AM for Rhondda actually reposted something on a Facebook page and that is what I'm saying. That post said that Brexiteers—. That post likens Brexiteers to Nazis.

I did not post—

She is of course not referring to the Brexit Party—[Interruption.]

You're lying.

Okay. The points have been made and I suggest that you move on. The points have been made.

You can't allow him to just keep lying.

You've made your point. You've made your point, Leanne Wood. Carry on with your contribution and move on from this particular point. 

Thank you.

[Inaudible.]

Don't shout at me. You're the leader of your group, Mark Reckless, I don't expect you to keep shouting at me and getting up on your feet. You won't be called. You are disrupting your own Member from continuing his contribution to this debate. David Rowlands. 

This was not referring to the Brexit Party in this post, but to all the people who voted Brexit, which, of course, includes the 30-plus per cent who voted Brexit in her own Rhondda constituency.

You're lying.

So now, hard-working, law-abiding citizens of this country who disagree with the remain stance on Europe are linked to a regime that murdered millions of people.

So, moving on, it is difficult to understand—

David, will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

Thank you, David. You were recently in Merthyr Tydfil with Nigel Farage and Mark Reckless, and you were at a rally at Trago Mills, where Mark Reckless stood on a platform with Nigel Farage and roll-called Labour AMs and MPs who he alleged were remainers and, as a result of that, those Labour AMs and MPs were abused verbally on social media and two of them—one of them me—had their offices attacked as a direct result of what you and Mark Reckless said at the Farage rally in Merthyr.

Can I say that, when I opened an office in Merthyr, all the signs were torn down, I had threats of it being burned to the ground, I had the locks on my offices glued up and I was verbally and physically abused by a group of left-wingers outside my office? So if you say that you've had that abuse, I have had a great deal more coming from the fascist left of your party.

It is difficult—

Your time is up, David Rowlands. 

I want to move on. 

Carwyn Jones.

If I could, perhaps, return then to the actual debate, which is over a referendum—it's not about remain or leave today. I've had plenty of views on that issue; I don't propose to repeat them. What I can say, though, is that, quite rightly, Darren Millar earlier on in this Chamber drew attention to the seventy-fifth anniversary of D-day tomorrow, when 12 nations united to defeat Nazism and fascism. I think what they will have seen today, and what they will see of our politics generally across Britain, would not have found their favour. This is not what they fought for. There is a duty on all of us in this Chamber to think carefully about where we go next as a society. 

What we can agree is that, in 2016, people voted to leave the EU. That is clear. We know that. We can see that from the result. But the problem is, as Llyr Gruffydd has said, there was no plan, there was no document, there was no guidance. When we had our referendums in 1997 and 2011, if people wanted to, they could look at a document that would tell them exactly what would happen, and therein lies the problem.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course. 

I heard the argument that was posited by Llyr Gruffydd, and he's quite right, there are all sorts of different forms of Brexit, but one thing that the people have rejected is to remain. That was on the ballot paper and it was rejected. Why do you want to put remain on a ballot paper again in a future referendum?

Because the circumstances have changed, and I'll develop that argument in a moment, if I may. 

Mark Reckless can stand in this Chamber and he can argue that it was a vote to leave under any circumstances. He can make a case for that on the basis of the result in 2016, even though nobody argued it in 2016, but he can use that evidence to make a case. Similarly, I take the view that it was a vote to leave the EU but it was silent on the single market and the customs union, neither of which require EU membership, nor was it, to my mind, a vote to leave the European Medicines Agency and Euratom. I can make a case for that. This was simply leaving the EU and nothing else. We can't both be right. 

We know that people were offered a hard-ish Brexit in 2017 and they declined to support it. We saw what Theresa May did. We saw the headlines in the paper that said this would be an attempt to crush the saboteurs, who are apparently still uncrushed. We know that a fortnight ago, 32 per cent of people supported a party that was unequivocal, in fairness, about committing itself to a WTO deal. That is not a majority in favour of leaving the EU without a deal. That is not democracy. The numbers don't add up.

And I have to say, I've heard this so many times about 'the establishment'. Well, let me say to those who claim that I and others are part of the establishment, I am the great-grandson, grandson and nephew of colliers. I am the first head of Government in the UK to have come from a comprehensive school. I didn't go to Eton, I didn't go to a private school and I didn't gamble on metal prices in the city. I had a proper job, and then I came to this place and carried on with the experience that I had as a lawyer. 

The analogy that's often used to describe Brexit is that of a cliff edge. Well, people were told that they could jump off the edge of a cliff, but there would be a hang glider there to help them, that it would soar in the air—nothing to be afraid of. 'Don't worry', they were told, 'the EU will make sure the hang glider's there and, if not, the German car manufacturers will make sure the hang glider is there.' But now the people have come to the edge of the cliff and there is no hang glider. 'Don't worry', they're told, 'you can jump off, it'll be fine, don't believe those people who tell you that gravity will cause you to plummet—that's part of project fear. And don't worry anyway, because the US will turn up with a parachute, maybe when you're in mid air, but only if you give them your shirt.' 

It's time to settle this once and for all; three years of incessant argument with no end. Britain is a laughing stock. It's not the EU that fell apart because of Brexit; it's Britain that's doing it. Government in London is paralysed. Nothing is happening there. No-one took any notice to what happened with British Steel; it's all about Brexit, utterly consuming. Jobs are being lost. Surely, the people of Britain deserve to consider whether they want to jump with or without the hang glider, or whether or not to jump at all. 

To me, that means we have to consider another referendum. And let's not pretend that if the result had gone the other way that Nigel Farage would not over the last three years have been agitating for a second referendum because the first one was so close. One of the London newspapers had its front page ready in anticipation of a remain vote with the headline implying that votes had been rubbed out on ballot papers. It was The Sun, and then, of course, everything changed. So, let's not kid ourselves that somehow it would all have been settled in 2016 if it had been a remain vote. 

So, how on earth do we settle it? Well, to me, it's a two-question referendum. Question one: in the light of current circumstances, remain or leave? It's a fair question. Question two: leave with a deal or without a deal? Settled. You ask those two questions, you get the answer one way or the other. If people vote to leave without a deal, well, there are many of us in this Chamber that wouldn't agree with it, but the decision's made, it can't be argued about. That's it. There is no question about it. And that will give us clarity. You cannot hijack the 2016 vote and give it the most extreme interpretation possible, especially given what happened in 2017 and, of course, what happened a fortnight ago when a WTO deal was not supported by two-thirds of those who voted.

We know that such a referendum will give us clarity. The Scottish referendum had two questions in 1997, but there is a serious question mark—I am winding up, Llywydd—not just about the economic well-being of the UK, but whether the UK itself will continue to exist. It would surely be the ultimate irony if those who wish for the UK to leave without a deal become the architects of the UK's own demise. Our politics is poisoned. Our society is fractured. We need to settle it. The people had a voice in 2016. They deserve a voice now. In sense, in reason, in democracy, the people deserve a final say.

I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Llywydd, three years have passed since the result of the referendum, and it appears that we are further away than ever from coming to any sort of decision. The European elections demonstrate clearly that our nation is as divided as ever on the key issue of our relationship with the European Union. The Westminster Parliament has failed to agree, and now we will waste even more valuable time as the Conservatives start a campaign to elect a new leader. I'm grateful to Plaid Cymru for the opportunity, through this motion, to discuss the way forward, as the political landscape is changed following the announcement of the UK Prime Minister that she is to step aside.

This Chamber, of course, knows that the outcome of the 2016 referendum was not what we wanted. But we have been consistent in seeking to find a way to deliver on that result and to do the best for Wales in the process. Unlike the UK Government, we recognised the deep divisions and sought to build a consensus, and unlike the UK Government, we also recognised from the start that no form of Brexit would be pain free or would preserve all the economic benefits of EU membership. 

In 'Securing Wales' Future'—unlike the Conservatives, unlike the Brexiteers—we set out a way to deliver EU exit that would not fatally undermine the security of people's jobs and the economy of Wales, whilst seeking to deliver on the referendum result. And 'Securing Wales' Future' shows that we as a Welsh Government have led the way, rather than simply, perhaps, echoing the approach of our Labour colleagues in Parliament. And that White Paper, published nearly two and a half years ago, provided a detailed blueprint for the way forward. It went significantly further than our colleagues in Parliament in spelling out the trade-offs that would be necessary, and there's nothing strange in that, as we are a party in Government here not a party in opposition, and a Government that prioritises the interests of the people of Wales. 

Now, once again, we are defining our own way forward by making clear that, after three wasted years, it is time again to make the case for remaining in the EU. After those three years, there is sadly no consensus coming forward in Parliament and in a country still so divided. The Conservative leadership election will provide no solution. Unless action is taken, as Lynne Neagle said, it will inevitably lead to only one costly outcome: a hardline Brexit or a catastrophic 'no deal', of the type so shamefully advocated by Mark Reckless and Darren Millar in the Chamber over the course of the last few days in particular. We cannot and will not stand by while that takes place. 

Yes, our position has evolved and we do not apologise for that. The Prime Minister has shown the damage that can be done by clinging to red lines and her catchphrases. We must take action based on the realities that we face. The European election suggested that the sort of soft Brexit that we have advocated does not command widespread support. It is becoming increasingly clear that the choice this country faces is between a hard Brexit and 'remain'. We cannot entrust the future livelihoods of our citizens to a group of hard Brexiteers in the Conservative Party.

So, we are making clear now, once again, that we will campaign remorselessly to remain and we need parliamentarians of all parties to recognise the only way forward is to legislate for another referendum. The UK Government should be taking the necessary steps to prepare for another referendum now, drafting the relevant legislation, consulting the Electoral Commission and seeking agreement to another extension to the article 50 process. That is why most recently when I met with the Brexit Secretary here in Cardiff, on 16 May, I asked him directly what preparations the UK Government are making. The answer, in effect, was none. So, Parliament needs to take the initiative. We cannot allow more time to be squandered.

So, let me be clear: we support the motion before the Assembly. Any deal that any Government puts forward should be subject to a referendum. But we also believe that a referendum three years ago, on a proposition that the Government would find it easy to negotiate a benign Brexit, does not—as Carwyn Jones himself said in the speech—does not give a mandate to allow a disastrous 'no deal' to happen. Yet, it remains the default option. That's why we have proposed an amendment to reiterate the established position of this Assembly, and I thank Delyth Jewell, in her speech, for her support on behalf of Plaid Cymru for that amendment. We recognise, though, Llywydd, that in order to formally consider the amendment on the floor of this Chamber, we would effectively need to oppose or abstain on the motion itself, which we are not prepared to do. It's essential that the Assembly gives a clear statement of this position, and we will therefore support the motion as tabled, even though it will mean our amendment falls, but I am confident that this Chamber still has a majority in support of the principles set out in that amendment.

Two other amendments have been tabled to today's debate. The first amendment, from Caroline Jones, quite simply fails in any way to recognise the complexities of the UK's exit from the European Union and the hugely damaging impact of a 'no deal' scenario. We will oppose it. The second amendment, tabled by Darren Millar, must also be opposed. We all recognise the referendum result. It is a matter of fact. But the division that lies behind it, across Wales and the UK, is real, and we need a more thoughtful and more responsible approach to that reality.

We must not be complacent. The threat of no deal is very real. The election of a new Conservative leader only increases that risk. The time has come to put a final decision back to the people and prevent the country from drifting into the default of no deal, for which no-one made the case in 2016 and for which there is no mandate.

Rhun ap Iorwerth to respond to the debate. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased for the opportunity to close this debate, and I'm grateful to those who have contributed to the debate, which is another opportunity for us to make an unambiguous statement about the need to seek the consent of the people of Wales for the next step of our relationship with the EU. I respect the vote that happened in June 2016 and the outcome, namely that the population was divided but favoured, by a little, the principle they were asked to pass judgment on, in that context at that time.

What I'm not going to accept, in the face of three years of confusion and going nowhere, three years of Wales's needs being ignored by the establishment in Westminster and Whitehall, and three years of realising that much of what was told to the electorate during the referendum was misleading at best, that the vote in June 2016 settled clearly what the will of the people was. How could it settle clearly that, because there was no plan on the table even? Only now can we even think about settling this issue, and a confirmatory referendum is the way to do that.

Much of that debate in 2016 focused on the bonanza on its way to the NHS, an NHS that, ironically, would most likely face being sold off if we do leave the European Union, as it turns out. But when it wasn't focusing on that, it was lauded as being a way to take back control. There can, I would argue, be no better way of taking back control than by ensuring that all the way through this debate on our EU membership, it is the electorate that decides the outcome, and that—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

The referendum was also, to a large extent, about immigration, and that question has driven the rise of the far right, which I'm sure you share my concerns about, not just here but also in Europe and throughout the world. And do you further share my concern that it is those of us who are raising concerns and worries about the rise of the far right who are subject to fake news and who get harder and more vicious attacks than the far right themselves?

I'm pleased that you gave that information. I think all of us should be very concerned about the evidence, and there's plenty of it, that the Brexit debate is one of two things: either driving the growth of the far right or a symptom of it. And I've certainly seen some of the abuse that the Member for the Rhondda has taken, and it's disgraceful and I condemn it. And it would be good to hear others condemn that abuse rather than condemning Leanne Wood. 

It is the electorate, I believe, that should decide the outcome. And as I've mentioned a number of times here, that electorate now includes the hundreds of thousands of young people who have turned 18 since the referendum, including one daughter of mine, as it happens. They didn't have a voice then, and they should now. It's their future, more than anybody's, that's at stake. And let the people decide—the electorate, not Downing Street stitch-ups, not a Conservative leadership candidate, not Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage, but the people. How could it possibly undermine democracy, as some suggest, to want to be as democratic as we can be—to be as current, to be as up to date as we can in measuring public opinion? 

If people had been offered a clear vision of what the alternative to EU membership was, what Brexit actually meant, before the referendum, we wouldn't be in this situation now. Llyr mentioned the work that had been done in preparing the ground for the referendum on Scottish independence. But that preparation wasn't done before this referendum. UK Government has to take responsibility for rushing through that party political referendum—which is what it was—and we are all, on both sides of the debate, reaping what was sown then. We can, on both sides of the debate, see that rushing to trigger article 50 with no route-map was a mistake, and I'm proud that my party colleagues at Westminster voted not to. We weren't ready. We can all, on both sides of the debate, agree that the UK establishment has been deeply, deeply tarnished through its mishandling of this whole affair.

So, today, I am confident that we will vote to declare this Assembly's unequivocal support for a confirmatory referendum—on whatever terms proposed by any Prime Minister—that the UK leaves the EU with 'remain' on the ballot paper. Plaid Cymru's assessment is clear: the Member elected for UKIP in the south-east of Wales says Plaid Cymru's changed its mind somehow on Brexit—referenced the fact that we co-authored the 'Securing Wales' Future' White Paper. We have always been and remained committed to the view that we are best served by staying in the European Union. What the work on that White Paper and our voting on indicative votes in Westminster, for example, has shown is that we have been responsible since the referendum and that we've taken the position that if we have to leave—we don't want to—if we have to leave, let's at least try to mitigate, let's at least try to think, 'What's in Wales's interests?' and put the case for what's best for Wales. We were ignored, and after the shambolic events of the last three years, yes, our assessment remains clear that leaving the European Union—our assessment is—would be detrimental to Wales—bad for farming, as Llyr discussed; bad for young people, as we heard from Helen; for the NHS; for the economy. I'm proud to stand alongside others from across political parties here in the National Assembly who share that assessment. Not everyone will agree with that assessment, but the beauty of what we're calling for today is that it's not Plaid Cymru's will that we wish to be followed, but the will of the people today. Let's give the people, not us, the final say, and let the people give their assessment of what has unfolded since June 2016. Our future and the future of our children is at stake.

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

Voting deferred until voting time.