The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar.

The next item is the Brexit Party debate on leaving the European Union, and I call on—who's starting the debate? Mark Reckless. I'm sorry. I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion.

Motion NDM7071 Caroline Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that Wales voted to leave the European Union.

2. Regrets that the UK did not leave the EU on 29 March 2019, despite repeated promises to do so by the UK Government, and 498 MPs having voted to trigger the Article 50 process to leave by that date.

3. Rejects any extension of the UK’s membership of the EU beyond 31 October 2019.

4. Notes that leaving without a deal could reduce the cost of food, clothing and footwear significantly, and will save the UK taxpayer £39 billion.

5. Resolves that the UK should leave the European Union without a deal on the 31 October 2019 unless the EU, at least:

a) offers the UK a comprehensive free trade agreement; and

b) accepts alternative arrangements in place of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Motion moved.

Thank you, chair, for identifying me, and I'm grateful to have this time to raise the Brexit Party's first debate in the Welsh Assembly, in which we note that Wales voted to leave the European Union. Now, ideally, that shouldn't be necessary, but we voted to leave the European Union, not if the EU agrees or subject to getting a great deal. These are attempted conditions put in in arrears by remainers who don't want to accept the result of the referendum. Now, we regret that the UK did not leave the EU on 29 March this year, despite repeated promises to do so by the UK Government and 498 MPs who voted to trigger the article 50 process to leave on that date with or without a deal.

I also regret the Conservative amendment to our motion, not least that it begins with 'Delete all', and to the extent we're able to communicate these things, I trust that many of their erstwhile supporters will note that that is their intent. The substantive part of what they want to add is, at point 1, it's terribly important we put in the date of June 2016, apparently, and then, in point 2, it's terribly important that we take out the date of 29 March. Whether this is just to give an excuse to amend the motion having deleted all, or whether there's some terrible importance about why we need a date on one and not the other, perhaps we will hear in due course. But what I think is so important about this is that we should leave the EU now on 31 October this year. Of course, that's the third deadline; we were given 12 April as an intervening one as well. It's concerning to see the progress of this Conservative leadership election campaign, because we had one candidate who was very clear—Dominic Raab—that we would leave the EU on 31 October, with or without a deal, come what may. He could not have been clearer on that. But unfortunately, the fact that he got only 30 votes, compared to 37 for Rory Stewart, tells us, I think, much about the state of the Conservative parliamentary party and the relative weights of different factions within it. Now, of course we have as the strong leader of this field Boris Johnson. There has been some suggestion that he also says we must leave on 31 October, or that he would like to, but it's not quite clear that he will. He's done very few interviews. I heard the one he did on The World at One, and when asked about what he was saying about that, he said that he thought it was very important we shouldn't signal at this time that we might not leave on that date. And then last night, in another debate, he was asked would he rule out anything except leaving on that day. He refused to do so, and then he said it was 'eminently feasible' to leave on 31 October.

So, I mean, in our party, but, I think more importantly, amongst his European negotiators, it looks as if Boris Johnson isn't that serious about leaving on 31 October, and may well—. [Interruption.] That may or may not be the case. But may well look to change that date—look for yet another extension. I think the fundamental problem, at least, that the Conservative Party has—and I'll turn to the Labour Party in due course—is that, for 29 March, they were faced with a choice between no deal and no Brexit, and they chose no Brexit. I think they begin to understand the potential electoral consequences of that, but I think, probably, at the end of March, they could have left with no deal if they had a Prime Minister and a Cabinet and, potentially, a parliamentary party, that was sufficiently steeled to do so. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and each time it gets postponed, each time that date gets moved back, it becomes less likely that we will leave, and, of course, that is the intention of so many on the Labour side who don't want us to leave the European Union, campaigned for 'remain', purported after the result to accept and respect the result, but have ever since, and increasingly obviously, agitated to reverse the result of that referendum, to block Brexit and to deny democracy.

We also note some of the consequences of leaving without a deal, which isn't our preferred option. However, we have come to a pass where it is increasingly likely because of the failure of the Conservative Government to leave and the success of the Labour Party in blocking our leaving. Were we to leave with no deal, it's important to realise that we would not owe the European Union £39 billion. I get incredibly frustrated about reading so much from the 'remain' tendency about how no-one would ever lend anything to us again and we'd destroy our international credit rating. This is not a sovereign debt. We have no obligation to pay anything beyond what is specified by the article 50 process, the treaty that specifies how a member state may withdraw from the European Union. You remain liable for all your obligations—all the purported benefits of remaining, partially, arguably, offsetting those—for the notice period of two years, but after those two years, absent an agreement, the treaties cease to apply. We will not owe them money. We will save that £39 billion quid. Indeed, we should be saving some of that £39 billion already.

David Rees rose—

I give way to the Chair of the committee.

I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to what he was saying, and obviously the legal case has been shown in the House of Lords—the £39 billion is not legally obliged. There is a question of a moral requirement. But you just mentioned there are some obligations. Have you yet got a figure as to what those obligations are, regarding the amount we actually are required to pay because of the programmes we have submitted to? That's going to come out of the £39 billion that you're talking about.

Yes, I can give the number precisely to the gentleman. It is nil. After the two-year notice period expires, our obligations under the treaty expire. Just as when we joined the European Union, they didn't compensate us for a notional amount for the pension contributions for people who had been working for them but not for us before we joined. When someone leaves a company, you have a contractual arrangement. In international law, you have an international treaty, based on the treaty of Rome and its successor treaties. They have provided, since the Lisbon treaty, a specified treaty pre-agreed mechanism for leaving, which is that you give two years' notice under article 50. The treaties then cease to apply. You have no further financial obligation, as was correctly observed by the House of Lords.

Of course, if you want to stay in some programmes and participate in them, you will negotiate a price for doing so. But the idea that we owe this sum and that we are breaching a sovereign debt obligation is absolutely ludicrous. It comes from remainers who just seem to like the idea of giving their constituents' money to overseas organisations. We don't owe this money. Whether we want to pay something in return for something else is an entirely different matter.

I also note that, in terms of trade, should we leave the European Union without a deal—in a 'no deal' or a WTO rules scenario—we are not obligated to impose these large tariffs on particular sectors. The idea that food prices will suddenly rise massively presumes that we would choose to apply the same tariff that the EU does to non-EU goods. Now, it is correct that if we are on WTO rules, we need to be non-discriminatory. So, whatever the tariff is, it would be applied on an equal basis to the EU, as outside the EU, if there isn't a trade agreement or if there isn't an article 24 GATT arrangement. But that tariff does not have to be the maximum amount that the EU is allowed to apply, according to its WTO schedules.

David Rees rose—

I give way once more.

Again, I appreciate the question that you put to me on article 24 from the GATT, which is obviously only applicable if you are in discussions on a trade agreement because it doesn't apply if you are not having those discussions. You also identified the fact that, if you are going to reduce tariffs to allow the cheaper import of trade—which, as you quite rightly point out, the UK may do—it has to be applied across all WTO members, which does mean, therefore, that you will probably have imports at a lower level and cost UK jobs. There will be imports from countries that we would have had agreements with and would have had higher tariffs, now coming in at lower tariffs and putting UK jobs at risk. Do you accept that that is a possibility as a consequence of tariffs unilaterally being reduced?

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Well, it depends on what the tariff is, but the Member's position seems to be that any trade agreement is great as long as the European Union negotiates it and that we are part of it as the EU, but that any other arrangement is automatically bad, without looking at the merits of the size and the balance of the tariffs. [Interruption.] The Member says from a sedentary position that he didn't say that, and I'll accept that. But, what we do is up to us.

Essentially, the UK Government has set out a tariff schedule to apply. In some of the most sensitive sectors, what it looks to do is have a tariff to give a degree of protection to domestic producers, but one that is below the tariff that is currently set by the European Union. So, that will lead to a balance of the two effects that are identified. Some of the areas where there are high tariffs, such as on clothes, such as on footwear, except at the very high end, we don't produce any in this country, yet we have these huge tariffs to protect a limited amount of production within southern Europe, and we prevent China importing on those tariffs, where we give exemptions to some other countries. If we got rid of those tariffs on clothing and footwear, there would be a very significant reduction in cost, which would be most important for the poorest members of our communities, who spend the highest proportion of income on those goods.

If I may just move towards a conclusion, we had £172 billion of exports last year to the EU against £266 billion of imports. Were there to be tariffs on those both ways, and the weighted tariff would actually be higher on what we import than what we export, that would be a very significant amount of import substitution available to the domestic economy. As well as any short-term disruption and the long-term economic analysis that benefits free trade, in the short term, if you have moved to a situation of tariffs where you had none before with an economy where you have a massive trade deficit of £94 billion, the impact on your domestic economy in the near term in terms of demand is likely to have the positive element of the import substitution, which is very rarely discussed in this debate and needs to be set against the costs that others identify.

So, to conclude, I would encourage Members to support this motion, and we would like to get a deal if we can. Time is now short, but we should leave on 31 October with or without a deal, and if the EU wants a deal, it should offer at least what it has been prepared to offer Canada in terms of a free trade deal, not one where we have to give up Northern Ireland, or one we're locked into a customs union we can't leave without their permission.

I have selected one amendment to the motion, and I call on Darren Millar to move the amendment, tabled in his own name. Darren Millar.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

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

2. Regrets that the United Kingdom is yet to leave the European Union.

3. Believes that the outcome of the referendum should be implemented.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment. I have to say, it feels a lot like groundhog day in this Chamber. Yet another debate on Brexit when the situation outside of this Chamber remains largely unchanged since our last debate. We find ourselves yet again, as a Welsh Conservative group, between two extremes, if I can present you as this. We have the extreme of the Brexit Party, which wants to take us out on 31 October with no deal as your preference, because that's what Nigel Farage has said. He wants a clean Brexit by 31 October. He's not said that it's his aim to secure a deal. [Interruption.] Yes, happily.

I thank Darren Millar. Which extreme are you supporting—the Rory Stewart extreme or the Boris Johnson extreme?

I'll reflect on that, perhaps, later. So, we have that extreme, which has been expressed by Nigel Farage, your party leader. He's made it quite clear that his aim is a clean Brexit.

Will the Member give way? I'd like to say that Rory Stewart's been knocked out, so he can safely support Boris.

As a Boris Johnson supporter who declared before today, obviously that would please me.

And on the other side we have the other extreme, who are the Brexit deniers, who only believe in democracy in a referendum when it goes their way. A group of politicians who want to go back to square one and have another referendum because they don't like what the people of Wales told them in the first one. And of course that's the very reason why we haven't left the EU as was promised on 29 March, because neither side, on those two extremes—[Interruption.] I've not made much progress. I'll take one in a few moments, if I may.

Neither of the two sides on those extremes have been able to compromise or give ground, and we hear in this Chamber time and time again that people are fed up with the uncertainty, that we've got to put an end to it all, and yet we've had the opportunity to put an end to it all. We had the opportunity with the withdrawal agreement that was negotiated, and it's the only agreement that's been negotiated between the EU and the UK, and yet your MPs, particularly Plaid and Labour MPs, voted against this thing. So, I find it extraordinary, really, that we are in this position, and the reason, if I can just put you right, we put June 2016 in the motion is that we wanted to remind people that it's been three years since that vote and it's about time we got on and delivered on the result, which was clear—people voted to leave the EU. I'll take the intervention from Helen Mary.

I'm grateful to the Member. I would put it to him that the reason why we haven't left the EU is because his Government singularly failed to have conversations with other Governments in the UK, to have conversations with other parties that might have led to some sort of compromise that those of us who did not want the result of that referendum but were prepared to accept it in the first place, but we were never offered that opportunity, as other parties, to participate. Those conversations only happened at the last minute. His party's got to take responsibility for that, and I would put to him that the young people who came of age in the last three years now have got a right to have a say in their own future because his party couldn't get their act together.

The reality is that the UK Government quite rightly has spent its time negotiating with the EU, representing 27 states. But let's get back to this debate, because it's very important. We, unlike your party, Helen Mary, and unlike the Labour Party here, respect the result of the referendum and we believe that the will of the people should be implemented. That's why we've tabled this amendment today. We've always, as a nation, implemented the outcomes of referendums. We don't believe that we should patronise the people of Wales and tell them, 'We know better than you, and we're going to force you to go back to the polls, and you must vote in the way that we want you to vote next time around'.

Now, we've made it clear that we do support the aim of leaving the EU by 31 October, sooner if possible. I would like to see it as soon as possible, and we've made it absolutely clear in this Chamber on many occasions that we would prefer to leave with a deal, and that's why we backed the withdrawal agreement, which was a compromise between both of the extremes that we see here in the Chamber from the Brexit Party and from the Labour and Plaid axis, if I can call it that. But as I've made clear in this Chamber in the past also, whilst it's our preference to leave with a deal—and we want to see absolutely every effort made to secure one—should the EU not be prepared to shift or move their position, then there may be no option other than to leave without a deal in order to honour the outcome of the referendum. For me, it's more important to honour the outcome of the referendum than to extend that period and not fulfil the will of the people.

Will the Member give way?

I'll happily take—.

Could he clarify: is the Conservative Party position still to back the withdrawal agreement, or is it that of its putative leader, Boris Johnson, that it constitutes vassalage and a suicide vest around the country?

It's quite clear that the withdrawal agreement has no hope, in its current form, of passing through the UK Parliament, so there's going to have to be a discussion with the EU to see whether there's an ability to negotiate something different that would be acceptable. So, we've—. And it's because of this pragmatism on our side that we've supported the efforts of both the UK and the Welsh Governments to prepare and make extra effort to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit, because that may well be the outcome that we want, as much as we don't actually want to see that. So, I say to everybody in this Chamber, instead of your extremes—and that that's what you are; you're all extremists as far as we're concerned—[Interruption.]—you need to get back—[Interruption.]—you need to get back to a position where you compromise in the same way that we have on these benches, in order to move the situation forward and to deliver the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for.

There won’t be many occasions on this or any other afternoon where I find reason to thank the Brexit Party, but I will make an exception today for thanking them for the clarity of their motion, which specifically calls for a ‘no deal’ Brexit and to hell with the consequences for communities like Torfaen. [Interruption.] Yes, it does. To combine this new-found zeal for no deal with a refusal to acknowledge the need for a confirmatory vote is to rewrite the history of the 2016 referendum and is utterly undemocratic. Voters in Torfaen were told that a deal would be the easiest thing in the world, that countries would be battering down our doors to do exciting trade deals with us. Hundreds of millions flooding into the NHS—that is the illusion that was sold on the doorstep. We have not yet voted on reality.

The people who rely on the manufacturing sector in my constituency were not told that the price for a 'leave' vote could be their livelihoods—the work and the glue that holds communities together. Just last week, Make UK told the Brexit select committee that there was a direct link between politicians talking up the prospect of a 'no deal' and British firms losing customers overseas and British people losing their jobs. This cannot be dismissed as project fear—this is project fact. This is happening now. Plants are closing, jobs are going, communities are facing bleak futures. And this is just what the prospect of a 'no deal' is doing to us. Imagine what happens when that prospect becomes a reality, and that is what this motion before us today calls for.

At the very moment that our manufacturers are saying to us that calling for a ‘no deal’ Brexit is an act of economic vandalism, this is the moment when the Brexit Party table a motion calling for it. This is also the time when Boris Johnson launches his leadership campaign, which firmly puts 'no deal' on the table as a potential outcome of him becoming Prime Minister. And with another leadership hopeful supporting 150 per cent Katie Hopkins’s racist smear against the mayor of London, the toxicity of the Brexit debate shows no sign of abating. Now, I don’t expect I’ll convince the Brexit Party of the economic arguments against their chosen course today, but I do hope to convince them of something. This is, after all, the week in which we remember the death of our colleague, Jo Cox—a young female MP who spoke up for diversity as a strength and who was assassinated on the streets by a far-right terrorist. The language we choose to use in this Chamber matters. It really matters. The language our Members and supporters use on the street and online matters. It really matters. The labels we give other politicians and other people in our leaflets, our newspaper columns and Twitter feeds really matter. You will not find a more vocal critic of wrongdoers inside their own party than me. I will never excuse threatening, bullying or prejudicial behaviour by anyone. So, I want to give the leader of the Brexit Party that same opportunity today to clarify where he and his party stand on this. Since Mark Reckless accused me in this Chamber of disrespecting my constituents, I have been met with a sustained volley of abuse from a small but very vocal element locally.

Will you take an intervention? One of the Members of the Brexit Party just sighed and said, 'Oh God', when you mentioned the tragic death of Jo Cox. Do you join me in condemning that?

Absolutely, I do, and I think that is an absolute disgrace.

You think that the things you say in here—[Interruption.] You think that the things you say in here don't have a real-life impact. Well, they do. We can disagree—disagree passionately—about what we think is best for the economy of Torfaen, but to accuse me of not caring about Torfaen people's views is just plain wrong. I could have had a much easier career in politics if I didn't always put Torfaen first, but that has never been my way. Already, the security arrangements at my office have had to be revamped. During the Brexit Party's Merthyr rally, along with other Labour Members in this Chamber, I was denounced from the platform. Dawn Bowden's office was vandalised the next day. People are taking the lead from what they see and hear their leaders saying. When Nigel Farage said he was ready to don khaki to deliver Brexit, he might have thought it was a great joke. For people who are being targeted with violent abuse, it is anything but. This is politics by another means, it is dangerous, and I call on the leader of the Brexit Party to denounce, without equivocation, this threatening and intimidating rhetoric and behaviour. 

I assume the Member—[Interruption.] I assume the Member is wanting me to intervene. I denounce political violence and intimidation in all its forms. I've fought a by-election where I had a significant degree of intimidation and I think we need to call it out whenever we see it. I totally agree with this. I believe in democracy. I think we need to implement democratic results. That is the way that we should do politics in our country. 

Well, I hope that you will also then consider in the future the language that you use here, not just accusing some of us of disrespecting people, but I have heard the term too often 'betrayal', and the term 'betrayal' leads to accusations of people being traitors. I'll give way again.

I do not believe I myself have used that word. If I'm incorrect and you'd like to draw to me to anywhere when I've ever used that word in a political context to condemn anyone, then please do. But I don't believe I've said it. 

Well, I will certainly check that, but certainly some Members have. Needless—

Sorry, I don't want to take—

You've made your speech, Mark. I am speaking—

I need to—. I would like to correct what I just said. I don't believe I've used the word 'traitor'. That is not a word I use.

No, I—

The word 'betray' I may use in some contexts. But we should think very carefully how we use words, I agree.

I did not accuse you of using the word 'traitor', I was talking about the word 'betrayal', which does—

My denial—. I don't deny using that. 

Okay. Okay.

I should declare for the context, I do—. I haven't used the word 'traitor'.

Fine. I think you've clarified that. 

Thank you very much, but I'd like to finish my speech now, and I hope that you will reflect on the comments that I've made.

Needless to say, I won't be voting for this motion today. I remain on the side of the manufacturers who see any form of Brexit as harmful and a 'no deal' as straightforward economic vandalism. Far from disrespecting the people of Torfaen, it is the high regard I have for the fabric of every community in the constituency that energises me to fight for a final say, where people can have a real say on the real choices facing this country and not on the nebulous and dishonest terms we had in 2016. 

Before I start my contribution, I would like to ask to be accorded the respect due to me as one of your peers also. I find heckling and criticism—that comes largely from the Labour benches—childish and unsettling. It is in that spirit of mutual respect that I make these comments. 

I don't think there is anyone in the UK or watching the Brexit debacle from outside that would disagree that it's a mess—a big mess. I won't repeat here the arguments, counter arguments, statistics, polling and counter polling that has been the foundation of many of the debates here in this Chamber or anywhere else. We have all heard them before, and so have our constituents, and we can all twist them to suit any of our narratives. 

Obviously, I support this motion today, and I can’t help but think that this is the natural conclusion of the last three years of arguing, backpedalling, poor leadership, hidden agenda, lack of preparation and taking the electorate for granted. We have a deeply divided country that now appears to me to have split along leave/remain lines. We all know that, and these lines are appearing to transcend usual party allegiances.

An example from yesterday: I met a couple outside talking, and we got on great for 20 minutes talking about the sheep and the pigs outside, and what I did in farming previously and things like that. And then just as I shook their hand—we'd also agreed on things like EU rules, about ticks and farming and things like that—and, then just as I went to go in, she shook my hand and she said, 'Oh, lovely to meet you, what party do you represent?' and I said, 'The Brexit Party', and it was like I grew horns. She took a step back and she said, 'Well, I'm sorry, we voted "remain" and we will have to agree to disagree', and yet we'd agreed for the last 20 minutes when I put things forward to her. She'd agreed with everything, you know—so, it's just really weird. 

You won’t be surprised to hear that I believe that the continued relative success of our democracy means that I believe the vote that took place in 2016 needs to be implemented. The whole premise of our democracy is built on the consent of the loser. That is the underpinning principle. If that no longer applies, what then? I've heard too many people tell me that they will never vote again because their vote in 2016 has been disregarded, and a lot of those are on the Labour side. They tell me it’s pointless and meaningless. And we all lose if our democracy is built on apathy and a lack of trust in it. This is not a sustainable foundation.

I attended my first meeting of the Brexit committee on Monday, and I’d like to thank the clerks and the Members for their very warm welcome. Thank you. It was an interesting evidence session, where we discussed the ongoing development of common frameworks. The standout moment for me was the admission that there is apparently no agreement across the various UK Governments as to what an actual common framework actually is and what it does. Luckily, the committee is now seeking to clarify this by writing to Westminster, the Welsh Government and Scotland as well, hopefully. There appears to be a big communication problem all the way through, and this is doing a disservice to our country. Indeed, my former committee’s report, 'UK governance post-Brexit', pointed this out and made recommendations around this in 2018.

In my opinion, we are currently at a tipping point in terms of our exit from the EU—which must happen—in terms of our rather dysfunctional relationships with the other Governments of this land, which need to be sorted, and in terms of our democracy, in which we need to restore confidence. For these reasons, I will be supporting this motion of ours today. Thank you. 

Llywydd, Plaid Cymru has not sought to amend this Brexit Party motion; it is so far removed from reality that the kindest course of action is to put it out of its misery before it implodes under the weight of its own contradictions. To consider that the Brexit Party only cares about one thing—Brexit—it is really quite astonishing to be confronted with the depth of their ignorance about how it would work. It is a little like seeing a contestant on Mastermind scoring zero points on their self-professed specialist subject. The motion notes that 498 MPs voted to trigger article 50 back in March 2017. That, at least, is correct. That's 498 mainly Tory and Labour MPs who voted in favour of embarking on a voyage of discovery without a map, a compass or any idea of where it was they hoped to reach. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way, Mark.

Plaid Cymru warned at that time that it was a monumental mistake to set in motion a countdown to departure, when the UK Government had no clear set of objectives. The Government knew that there were serious issues with all types of Brexit, so, in the light of that difficulty, they decided not to decide which one to pursue in the hope that nobody would notice. They didn't want to choose a soft Brexit, because it would simply mean that they would have to carry on with EU membership without some of the benefits. They didn't want to choose a hard Brexit, because their own impact assessments clearly showed this would cause severe and long-lasting damage to the economy. And, since there was no goldilocks Brexit to be had, they chose neither, and negotiated a deal that pleased no-one.

Now, according to this Brexit Party motion, leaving the EU without a deal on Halloween could reduce the cost of food, clothing and—get this—footwear. Let's let that sink in. We've gone from £350 million extra a week for the NHS to a vague hope that we may get £3.50 off our next pair of shoes. And even this less-than-bold claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I'll take an intervention.

It's on that very point. You mentioned contradictions earlier on and, of course, we've heard about the impact, potentially, on the price of clothing. We just had a debate on climate change and the lack of sustainability, and yet the proposal seems to be inviting cheap imported throwaway fashion, basically, as a way to entice people to support a 'no deal' Brexit. Would you share with me that that's another contradiction that the Brexit Party don't seem to get?

On that, at least, we might be able to agree, on Brexit.

A 'no deal' exit would likely result in a sudden decline in the value of sterling, which would mean that nothing would be cheaper, so what is the Brexit Party's answer to this? How would they keep prices down? Their policy, insofar as can be deduced, would be to unilaterally reduce tariffs to zero. Of course, under the WTO's most-favoured-nation rule, it would be illegal to discriminate on tariffs outside of a trade agreement. So, the UK would have to drop tariffs on chosen goods for the entire world. The consequence of this, obviously, would be catastrophe for agriculture and manufacturing on these islands, flooding the market with cheap goods and making Welsh produce uncompetitive overnight.

Will the Member give way? We haven't proposed cutting all tariffs to zero. Broadly, we thought the Government tariff schedule was a sensible one. On clothing and footwear there's a strong case. On food, we would see the case for a degree of protection for domestic producers.

Thank you for that enlightening contribution, Mark.

A WTO Brexit would also lead, however, to a trade embargo, resulting in the halting of exports of UK animal-based products such as meat, eggs and dairy to the EU—I wonder if you would disagree with that as well—a double whammy as this would be for Welsh farmers, courtesy of the Brexit Party. We also have, of course, this lamentable claim that the UK could save £39 billion by withholding the so-called divorce bill. This would preclude a trade agreement with the EU, which the Brexit Party apparently wants, it would damage the UK's credit rating, and as the French Government has made clear, it would be considered a sovereign debt default by EU countries. Let us be absolutely clear what is being proposed here. The Brexit Party is advocating making the UK an economic basket case.

Now, let me turn to my favourite part of this astonishing motion, point 5, which calls for a 'no deal' exit from the EU unless they offer the UK a comprehensive free trade agreement and accept alternative arrangements in place of the Northern Ireland protocol. Well, these are demands for things that the EU has already offered and that the Brexit Party opposes. The EU offered comprehensive trade agreements with zero tariffs and they have accepted alternative arrangements for the border—it's in the Irish protocol, which the Brexit Party are rejecting. The backstop only comes into force if those alternative arrangements do not do what the Brexiteers say they will do, which is create a frictionless border. So, there we have it. The mess of a motion before us makes quite laughable promises. Cheaper shoes—give me strength—that aren't even deliverable. It demands that the EU offers a deal that it has already offered, and it will stand as proof down the ages that the Brexit Party was no more than a single-issue party that had zero understanding of the single issue it existed to advocate. In case it wasn't obvious, I urge Members to vote against this motion as we will certainly be doing.

Once again, I agree with Darren; it's groundhog day. We hear again that the first motion by the Brexit Party is to support their belief that leaving the EU without an agreement is a virtuous act and will enhance the lives of the people of Wales. Although this time, they've actually added little bits trying to encourage us by saying that there'll be a reduction on food, clothing and, as pointed out, footwear. I've got my shoes on; I'm okay.

But, in that discussion, they say that we won't pay the £39 billion. Well, we had the discussion and the exchange we had earlier, and it has been shown that there's no legal requirement for the whole £39 billion, but I think as Delyth Jewell has pointed out, the failure to meet your moral obligations—and there are moral obligations here—actually could and would probably be seen by the world as a failure to honour treaties that they enter into. And then, you're trying to say, 'Well, we want to trade with you and negotiate a deal with you, but at the same time, we won't give you what we think you should be having'.

It's full of fantasies, this motion, and it reflects the total inability of the party opposite to actually put together a cohesive argument for leaving the EU. They want to ignore obligations. And I think that last point, actually, is to blackmail the EU: 'You won't get your money unless you do a deal with us'. That's a form of blackmail. Do you think that other countries are going to meet into that? [Interruption.] It's not negotiation, and the Member from a sedentary position trying to say it is knows that full well. If he'd ever been in negotiations, he'd know better than that. I have, in a sense, been in negotiations that are slightly different—not with nations, but, more importantly, with my members.

Llywydd, I actually accept that the majority of people in Wales voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. In fact, in my constituency, the majority voted to leave in that referendum. So, I'm not standing here to challenge what they wanted to do. They wanted to leave. We may have differences as to what 'leave' meant, but they wanted to leave. And we must think of a way in which we can deliver that as much as possible, but we must do so whilst protecting people in Wales from the worst possible outcomes, because it's their living standards we want to protect as well.

The former First Minister, who was sitting here this afternoon, made it quite clear just after the referendum that this Welsh Government would work towards delivering the outcome of the referendum, but after almost three years of shambolic attempts in Westminster to devise a plan for Brexit, we're now left with a governing party in Westminster in turmoil, and a Government leadership contest with four candidates left—all of whom, by the way, were in Cabinet at the time of those two years—trying to actually renegotiate a deal that they've been told they can't renegotiate, or leaving without a deal, and we all know a 'no deal' departure will be the most damaging to this nation.

Now, it's incumbent upon this Assembly to take every possible action to protect the Welsh economy, and we're now in a situation that leaves us hardly any options in that, but one option we must accept is to fight against a departure from the EU without a deal. That is the worst possible scenario. The evidence I have heard clearly reflects that. Now, we heard today some stories from Members opposite that great things will come from such an exit and we'll have great trade deals with other countries, possibly the EU making a deal with us, our tariffs will be used across the globe, unilaterally across everybody, to give us a lower cost on shoes and lower costs on high-end clothes. Well, most of my constituents won't be buying high-end clothes.

We've heard also the argument from the leader, nationally, of the opposite party that the GAAT article 24 can be invoked and we will continue to trade with no tariffs across the EU. Well, he hasn't actually read article 24, I think, because if you read article 24—and the whole evidence is there; go to the House of Commons research people if you want to read it—that article 24 is invoked when you're in negotiations, not at this stage. We're not in negotiations. And when we leave, we won't be in negotiations, so we won't invoke 24. So, we will not be in a position where we can actually say, 'Let's keep the status quo', because it won't apply. 

We also remember that article 24 only applies to goods. It does not apply to services. So, one of the largest elements of our economy is not included in article 24. So, again, we will not have status quo in our economy. We will have to pay tariffs, and it's been pointed out by Delyth that WTO rules apply across all nations that are members of the WTO rules, and if you drop any tariff to try and encourage imports, you drop it for every nation, and that could put our jobs in this country at risk, as you have not got protections against some of the goods coming in, which may not be to the standards or quality we want because there's no question of regulation either on those aspects.

Another inaccurate statement being distributed by the Brexit Party—I've read their articles—is that you can drive across Europe with no problem: 'Don't worry; HGVs can go across, they're all okay'. We've been given 102 ECMT permits—look it up if you don't know what ECMT stands for. That means 5 per cent of the UK's haulage system is able to travel across Europe. Ninety-five per cent can't. How many Welsh hauliers is that going to put at risk? This fantasy of leaving with no deal being good for our economy has to be put out clearly to the public—that it is a fantasy. The reality is that leaving without a deal puts this economy at serious harm. And we represent people, every single one of us, even the four Members over there, who have to ensure that their living standards do not drop. A 'no deal' exit makes that happen. This motion is full of fantasy, full of fabrication and full of loss of hope for the people and economy of this country, and I would suggest everyone opposes it.

The Brexit Minister to respond to the debate—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. In a statement a fortnight ago, I said that despite the further extension to the article 50 process, we are no nearer finding a way forward on the UK's exit from the European Union. The UK Government has failed to deliver on the most important issue in our peacetime history and has failed to heal the divisions in our society. In 2016, following years of infighting within the Conservative Government in Westminster, many in our society felt that they had been left behind and forgotten by those with a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable.

According to some, the referendum campaign was the greatest democratic event in our history, but this was the event that caused the greatest divisions, too, and the divisions that already existed were fed by the 'leave' campaign, which tried to persuade voters in any way possible that leaving the European Union would resolve the problems in our society. That was a campaign that was built on effective images, but didn't have any substance, like 'taking back control'. We won't see the UK receiving £350 million per week, as was claimed. Quite the contrary. The unsuccessful efforts to deliver Brexit have already cost billions of pounds, money that could have been spent on hospitals, schools and public services, which are so crucial. This has already led to an economy that is significantly smaller than we would have seen otherwise.

It was claimed that a free trade agreement with the EU would among the easiest in human history to agree, but that wasn't the case. We have been involved in endless negotiations that have proved just how wrong was the perception that the EU needed us more than we needed them. We haven't even started on real negotiations with other parts of the world, and Liam Fox hasn't even managed to ensure that we will have anything like the same access to markets like Canada and Japan, where we currently benefit from a free trade deal through the European Union. In the meantime, there is more and more evidence arising that demonstrates that any kind of Brexit will be damaging, and that a 'no deal' Brexit will be disastrous.

As we were approaching the first cliff edge in March we discussed the implications of a 'no deal' exit based on our understanding of the evidence and the extent that governments, the private sector and wider civic society could try to mitigate those impacts. The UK Government's own analysis estimates the UK economy would be between 6.3 per cent and 9 per cent smaller in the long term in a 'no deal' scenario. The starting figure for Wales is, alarmingly, as much as 8.1 per cent smaller, and those figures don't even account for any short-term disruptions, which would be likely to seriously exacerbate the impacts of a 'no deal' scenario.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned that food prices could increase permanently, and the British Retail Consortium estimates families could end up paying an additional £1,000 a year for their shopping. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that a 'no deal' Brexit was gambling with other people's businesses, livelihoods and jobs. We will be disadvantaged, and that will have an impact on business decisions and investment decisions going forward. I am sure that view will have a resonance with automotive workers across Wales. I could go on.

I know the leaders of the 'leave' campaign don't like experts and evidence, but we have a choice. We can listen to reasonable assessments based on the fact that a 'no deal' exit would see an end to frictionless trade, or we could, like the Brexit Party, stick our fingers in our ears and tell ourselves that good times are just around the corner. Llywydd, it's frankly astonishing that, despite the evidence we have on the stark implications of a 'no deal' Brexit, we have this motion before us today, making the same unsubstantiated claims that were mis-sold to the public during the referendum in 2016. It's frankly astonishing that it has only just occurred to Mandy Jones that there are immense problems in trying to negotiate the difficulties we face as we look at Brexit.

This is a motion the Government rejects and I call on the Assembly to do so also. No-one is disputing the fact that a majority in Wales voted to leave the European Union. Many of us tried to find a way of leaving the EU that respected the result of the referendum without decimating our economy. The Welsh Government set out our approach in 'Securing Wales' Future' and took every opportunity to present our evidence-based case to the UK Government and the EU. But, just as no-one disputes the referendum results, no-one surely believes that those voting to leave the EU did so wanting to trash the economy in the way that a 'no deal' outcome would. No-one made the case for 'no deal', no-one voted for 'no deal', 'no deal' has no mandate.

The National Assembly, together with the Scottish Parliament, has rejected a 'no deal' outcome. A majority of Members of Parliament also continue repeatedly to vote against 'no deal'. Those that continue to ignore the reality of the catastrophic consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit are simply acting recklessly with the livelihoods of our citizens and their future security. The Welsh Government will not amend this motion. The position of the Government was clearly expressed in the motion that was passed two weeks ago.

Recent developments in the contest to be the next Tory leader have only further endorsed our position, that by design or default the future Conservative Prime Minister will be taking the UK towards a 'no deal' outcome. Faced with that straight choice between a catastrophic 'no deal' or remaining in the EU, we are unequivocal in backing 'remain' and we continue to call on Parliament to take control of this process and legislate for a referendum as a means of remaining in the European Union.

I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank everybody who took part in this debate. Regardless of the difference of opinions, every contribution in this debate has been valuable and respected. 

In opening, Mark Reckless highlighted the Conservatives' 'delete all' motion. I would just like to say that the confusion and disarray of the Conservative UK Government has now been transferred to Wales. Helen Mary Jones made a valid point in her intervention and she said that had there been successful negotiations from the Conservative Government then perhaps people, whatever they voted, could have all come together, negotiated, spoken, and we would have had some sort of outcome that would have been acceptable to the people of Wales. Mark stated in his contribution that he would prefer a deal, but we don't know if that's possible because of the UK's negotiating power.

Will you take an intervention?

I have three minutes, Darren; I'm sorry. 

So, whilst many of you may disagree with our position, which you do, you must accept that the people of Wales voted in one of the biggest democratic processes in our nation's history. They voted decisively to leave behind them the bureaucracy and protectionism in favour of a future free from being in the EU. [Interruption.] I will be.

So, to those who are doing all they can to thwart Brexit, please remember that our constituents wanted us to leave the EU and trusted the UK Government to carry out this process, which they have not been able to do. People are telling me quite a lot of the time that they are fed up of politicians telling them that they didn't know what they voted for and that politicians know better. The recent result of the EU elections indeed showed that people did know what they voted for. My party, Plaid Brexit, which didn't exist until a few months ago, came first in 86 per cent of council areas in Wales, and that should now tell people the depth of feeling here in Wales. 

So, I think there is for all here an opportunity for everyone to put aside differences to honour what the people of Wales voted for, and let's try and deliver the best that we can for the people.

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.