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.