The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Caroline Jones, amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, and amendment 5 in the name of Neil McEvoy.

And, in accordance with Standing Order 12.3, and at the request of the First Minister, I have summoned the Assembly to debate Brexit and the prorogation of the UK Parliament. And, to move the motion, I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM7128 Rebecca Evans, Rhun ap Iorwerth
 
To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Shares the view of the Speaker of the House of the Commons that it is a 'constitutional outrage' for the Prime Minister to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament for more than five weeks at a time of national crisis.

2. Reiterates its view that a no deal Brexit would cause significant short term disruption and deep long-term damage to Wales, and that therefore the United Kingdom should in no circumstances leave the EU on a no deal basis; and believes that the neither the 2016 referendum nor the 2017 General Election provide a mandate for this course of action.

3. Calls on Members of Parliament to use any legal and constitutional means available to prevent the UK Government from pursuing a no deal outcome to the Brexit negotiations and to ensure that the decision on whether or not to leave the EU in the light of current circumstances should go back to the electorate in a referendum.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd, and may I start by thanking you for agreeing to the recall of the National Assembly for Wales, and thank Members of all parties for attending today? And may I also thank Plaid Cymru for co-tabling the motion before us today, and that so that the Assembly once again can adopt an unambiguous message on a 'no deal' Brexit?

It's already a cliché to say that we live in unusual times. For those of us on this side of the Chamber, the dangers and risks facing us are exceptional too. 

Llywydd, I asked you to consider recalling the Assembly when the UK Prime Minister announced his intention to prevent Parliament for sitting for more than a month, or as David Lidington, the previous Deputy Prime Minister put it, to gag Parliament in these most crucial days for our country. If Members of Parliament are to be denied a voice, then it is all the more important that we here should be able to speak up for Wales, for our economy and our future. When our motion says that the actions of the Prime Minister are an outrage, we mean exactly that. In a few short weeks, we have seen a Government turn its back on the fundamental decencies of a functioning democracy—an utter disregard for the truth, an utter disregard for Parliament, an utter disregard for the services of those senior women and men in his own party who dare to disagree with him. 

Let me begin, Llywydd, with the issue of telling the truth. Now, I have been in politics long enough to know that the same object can be described in different ways from different perspectives, but when the Downing Street official spokesperson is put up to say that the Prime Minister has no plans to prorogue Parliament, when a Scottish court discovers that he had already decided to do just that, that is not just telling your own version of the truth. Let us call it what it is: it's a lie, a deliberate, intentional lie. And, Llywydd, this is but one example, and, sad to say, there are plenty more. 

Michael Gove is put up to say confidently that there will be no shortages—no shortages—of fresh produce on supermarket shelves after a 'no deal' Brexit, only for the British Retail Consortium, whose members actually stock the shelves, to say that this is categorically untrue. Or the health Secretary, Matt Hancock, assuring us that the NHS will be 10 out of 10 prepared for no deal by 31 October, when the national health service itself says that there is a strong likelihood of shortages of vital drugs—vital drugs that treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and epilepsy, amongst other things—because they cannot be stockpiled, and when the British Medical Association says leaving without a deal will irreparably harm the NHS and the nation's health. 

Now, Michael Gove, who now defends the Government's strategy as having a mandate from the 2016 referendum, is the same Michael Gove who said as recently as March that

'we didn't vote to leave without a deal. That wasn't the message of the campaign I helped to lead.'

Llywydd, a Government that has lost all respect for the truth has lost its moral compass. It leads to the belief that the inconvenience of Parliament is best addressed by its enforced silence. It leads to the belief that, as Sir Nicholas Soames put it yesterday, a party that was once a broad church should be reduced to a narrow sect by expelling those who take a different view. Llywydd, a Government that has no respect for the truth has forfeited the respect on which our democracy relies. That is why it is absolutely essential that we send a clear message of support today—support to those in Westminster and in the courts who are, even now, fighting this abuse of power. And I want to say how proud I am that we as a Welsh Government have been able to join the case led by Gina Miller, which is being heard in the High Court as we meet in this Assembly this afternoon. 

Now, of course, it is not only the means that the UK Government is using to which we strenuously object; it is also the ends they are trying to achieve. This Assembly has already, many times, expressed its outright opposition to leaving the European Union without a deal. And the information about Whitehall's preparations for such an outcome, which is now in the public domain, only serves to highlight the short-term chaotic disruption we can expect to experience if Boris Johnson pushes us over that cliff edge on 31 October. Now, as a Government, we have been working ever harder as this threat comes ever nearer. At every point in the process, we have published detailed information showing how Brexit would have an impact here in Wales and the steps we have taken tirelessly to understand the risks and, insofar as we are able, to mitigate them. When the Assembly reconvenes, this Government will publish further information for Members and the Welsh public, setting out the action plan we have put in place for this autumn. 

Llywydd, the damage of a 'no deal' exit will not be temporary. It threatens profound systematic damage to our economy. The Bank of England says that such an outcome will permanently—permanently—reduce the UK's export potential. The Treasury believes that it will result in an economy 8 per cent to 10 per cent smaller in 15 years' time than if we remain within the European Union. The president of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters, has said that it would be socially and economically catastrophic for farming in Britain—a message that was echoed time and again over the summer when I attended agricultural shows across Wales with my colleague Lesley Griffiths. And Make UK, the manufacturers organisation, has said that it would be disastrous for the majority of UK manufacturers and the livelihoods of the millions of people they employ and their families.

Llywydd, it is no exaggeration that what this Prime Minister and his 'no deal' Brexit threatens is to strip out whole layers of the Welsh economy, with the loss of many highly skilled and well-paid jobs, just as the Thatcher Government did in the 1980s. This may be a Prime Minister willing to purge his party of the longest serving Member of Parliament, of the grandson of Winston Churchill, of his own relations, but he will never be able to purge his party of the deliberate damage that was inflicted on Wales during those Thatcher years and which he now threatens to revive in our own time. The slowdown in the economy caused by a Brexit without a transition period could cost 40,000 to 50,000 jobs in Wales alone.

And, Llywydd, surely the single greatest fallacy of Boris Johnson's 'no deal' Brexit is the idea that it will avoid the need for negotiations with the European Union. The day after a disorderly crash-out Brexit, the need for a strategic, positive relationship with our largest and nearest market will remain. The Prime Minister talks loudly about developing a deep and wide free trade agreement. Before he or any of the Brexit extremists he has gathered around him can even step through the door in Brussels, the European Union will require a settlement of the three outstanding issues in the withdrawal agreement that they dismiss: citizen's rights, paying our bills, and the border on the island of Ireland. Leaving on 31 October without a deal will leave a legacy of acrimony and bitterness that will make it even harder to reach agreement on those three unavoidable issues. 

So, we in this Chamber must resist a 'no deal' Brexit with all our might. As this Assembly stated back in June, we must support the decision going back to the people, whether in a referendum, in which we, as a Welsh Government, will resolutely support remaining in the European Union, or, as it now seems likely, in a general election.

Llywydd, the Government will vote against all amendments to the motion today. We do so because, on a day when this Assembly needs to send a clear message on two major issues of the day, namely the threat to our democracy and the threat of a 'no deal' exit from the European Union, these amendments draw attention away from these central issues.

They introduce material that is extraneous at best, and plainly divisive at worst. Instead of the strength of a single statement, they would confuse and dilute our message. Instead of finding the maximum amount of common ground, they would narrow that ground in a way that pushes support away rather than drawing it in.

On this side, we will support the motion put in front of this Assembly by Plaid Cymru and by the Government—a motion that goes to the heart of the choice facing this country: to defend our democracy from those who would ride roughshod over it and to defend Welsh citizens from the catastrophe of a 'no deal'. That's what this Government will be voting for this afternoon, and I urge all Assembly Members here to do the same. 

I have selected the six amendments to the motion and 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. Considers that legislatures are best presided over by a member who is politically neutral and refrains from taking controversial or partisan stances which may undermine the impartiality of their office.

2. Supports a clean break Brexit in light of the refusal of many MPs to accept the result of the 2016 referendum and the intransigence of the European Union in its negotiating position.

3. Calls on the UK Government to use all necessary and appropriate means to implement the result of the 2016 referendum, in which both the UK and Wales voted to leave the European Union.

Amendment 1 moved.

I move amendment 1 in the name of Caroline Jones. May I start by expressing some sympathy for the BBC as they struggle to explain to their listeners and viewers the purpose of our recall today? They say that the debate will have no impact on the Brexit process, but may give an indication of AMs' views. Of course, the First Minister says, 'We will resist this with all our might', but, of course, it is a matter to be determined by Westminster, whatever we say here today.

He says that he wants to send an unambiguous message that Labour and Plaid Cymru adopted a joint motion to send an unambiguous message, but that's not what he's doing. His speech just now was not the same as his motion. His motion says,

'should go back to the electorate in a referendum.'

That is not what he said in his speech or what his Brexit Minister said on Wales Live last night. So, we have seen the development in the Welsh Labour Government's position from supposedly accepting the referendum to promoting a Brexit in name only to saying that there must be another referendum because Wales got it wrong: people should be told to vote again because they know better. But now we're not even doing that. We have in the motion before us today something saying that it needs to go back to the people in a referendum, yet a First Minister who just said just now that isn't the case, he doesn't want a referendum, not going to be any renegotiation. Whatever Corbyn says, the Welsh Government's position is that they want to cancel Brexit without even a second referendum. How much more contempt could you have for your voters than that?

The First Minister didn't say how he was going to vote on Plaid Cymru's amendments. He says they've—[Interruption.] I'm happy to take an intervention if the First Minister wanted. [Interruption.] Is the First Minister intervening? [Interruption.] No, it's—[Interrupion.] That's from a sedentary position, Lee Waters. I give way to the ex-First Minister.

I'm grateful to the Member. I distinctly heard the First Minister deal with the position of the Government in relation to Plaid Cymru's amendments. I don't know why he didn't hear that; perhaps he wasn't listening.

Well, the First Minister's speeches are always rapt and engage everyone's attention; I'm sure he needs no lessons in oratory from his predecessor. But we see Labour and Plaid—. And this isn't the first time this has happened; I've lost count of the number of times it's happened that they agree a joint motion with Plaid Cymru and then Plaid Cymru come and seek to attack that agreed motion with their own amendments seeking to exploit Labour's divisions. [Interruption.] We will watch the vote and we will see where Labour stand, but what the First Minister said just now is not what their motion said. He said just now, 'No referendum; we'll just have an election, then we'll cancel Brexit'. Yet, even in their motion, they dare not say that; they refer to a referendum. [Interruption.] Sorry, there are an awful lot of sedentary interventions. I'm very happy to take interventions from Cabinet Ministers who have anything to say that they would like to put on the record. No? I will turn, then, to the detail of our motion, our amendment.

So, you have in your motion a reference to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his, quotation, 'constitutional outrage'. You put that in your motion as if it adds authority to your motion, as if he is an impartial and neutral arbiter. But, actually, he's batting for your team, and the problem that the House of Commons and Parliament has had this week is, rather than having a neutral arbiter in the chair, acting impartially, they have had a biased member of the 'remain' establishment. I give way.

In the first point of the motion, he actually refers to legislatures plural; he's not just referring to the House of Commons. Can he clarify what he means by 'legislatures'?

Well, I think, as a general point, it holds. What I would say is that the Llywydd here hasn't brought my children into the matter. She also has a dignity and respect policy, which, as far as I'm aware, she leads through personal example, whereas, in Parliament, in the Commons, we see a Speaker with the most outrageous and serious allegations from the closest possible sources of appalling bullying behaviour over many years, yet Margaret Beckett, for the Member's party—and, of course, she did lead it for a period, and was a deputy leader for longer—said that Brexit 'trumps bad behaviour'. So, he's been allowed to get away with that, because Labour believes he backs them.

Can I just take four examples of where the Speaker of the House of Commons has broken the rules of that institution? We rely on laws being properly passed according to Standing Orders, yet, in the Commons, we have seen initially an interpretation by the Speaker of Government business motions being moved forthwith. He interrupted that as not forthwith, but 'let's allow an amendment and let's allow someone else to take over the Order paper first', notwithstanding that being in Standing Orders. Similarly, we saw on Tuesday a Standing Order 24 debate, which is required to be in general terms without a vote. He ripped that up and said, 'Well, let's have a vote, a take-over order motion—do want you want', because he agrees with them. He is a biased member of the 'remain' establishment. Parliament is not working because we can't trust the chair to be impartial. We then have a law passed by the Commons—and we're recalled to debate this, we're recalled to debate someone else's prorogation; not my decision, but yours—but what we see the Speaker do is two decisions of huge significance.

Firstly, he determines that Queen's consent is not required. Two key reasons why we have not seen the Crown veto a Bill since Queen Anne's time is, firstly, where the prerogative is materially affected by legislation, Queen's consent is required. Agreeing to an extension, in a treaty, of article 50—not just seeking it, but agreeing it—is clearly treaty-making affecting the prerogative. Yet Bercow's own initiative has decided that it doesn't require Queen's consent, doesn't materially affect the prerogative. That is wrong, but the chair is biased. More important still, we see the decision not to require a money motion for a Bill that will require expenditure net of £1 billion per month for an indefinite period. Bercow has decided, 'Ah, we won't have a money motion'. But actually, the constitution of the UK works on the basis of the Crown, in Parliament, and the prerogatives of both Government and the Commons. That has been ripped up this week. If you allow any Member to move a Bill with significant expenditure, and if that Bill gets through and the Government has to spend the money, there is no control over all expenditure. We have a budget process in this place, as they do in the Commons. Someone decides centrally how much can be afforded, and then that expenditure is divvied up. If instead, on the basis of a backbench Bill, you can spend £1 billion a month without the say-so of the Government, you are ripping up your constitution. And that is what has happened this week, and it is the Speaker of the House Commons who has enabled it.

Turning to the second point of our amendment, we support a clean-break Brexit. Now, this was not my first preference. I would have preferred a deal. I can envisage a deal that would be better than no deal. But, unfortunately, that has not happened, and it has not happened for two interlinked reasons. Firstly, the EU has been intransigent, particularly with a backstop that says we can never leave without their permission the customs union or the single market for Northern Ireland. And we've then seen MPs and other senior figures who voted 'remain' refuse to accept the result. And worse, we have seen a collaboration between the two, of the latter going to the European Union and telling them, 'If you make the deal as bad as possible, then we'll vote it down, and then we'll say "Oh, we can't possibly leave with no deal", and then we won't leave'. That is what they are trying to do. They purport that this is preventing 'no deal', but their real aim is to prevent Brexit. Here you have a motion that says we should in no circumstances leave without a deal, or if you have a Bill in Parliament that says we must accept whatever extension, whatever terms offered by the EU, then we can never leave, or we can only leave on terms that are so awful because they're set by them and we have no right to walk away. So, they move from a position of purporting to accept what was decided in the referendum to a position of blocking Brexit to deny democracy. That is what they are. Thankfully, they're in a bubble, and sooner or later we'll have an election and the people of the country will have their say.

I call on Adam Price to move amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

If faced with the prospect of a no deal Brexit for which there is no mandate, calls for Article 50 to be revoked.

Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

If the electorate is offered a general election instead of a referendum to resolve the Brexit crisis, calls on pro-remain parties to campaign on a policy of revoking Article 50 and remaining in the EU.

Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Prepares for the possible eventuality of a no deal outcome by calling on the Welsh Government to establish a Welsh National Constitutional Convention, including a Citizens' Assembly; looking at all options for Wales's constitutional future, including independence, and to begin preparations for a referendum whereby the people of Wales decide their constitutional future.

Amendment 6—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to make available full details of the Yellowhammer documents relating to a no deal scenario that it has been provided with.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6 moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I'd like to thank you for agreeing to the call from the First Minister for a recall of this Assembly. It follows a similar motion from us earlier in the summer, because we had anticipated at that point the thoughtless course being followed by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. It's certainly a critical period for us as a nation, and it is appropriate that our national Parliament should meet at a time such as this in order to voice opinions on behalf of the people of Wales.

We see a Government in Westminster at the moment that is intent on trying not only to leave the European Union without a deal in the most reckless manner possible, but willing to carry out their threats to use any means to do so whatsoever, including—the main focus for us today, of course—the suspension of Parliament, but also, as we've seen—we've heard reference to some of the legal cases—the flouting of the rule of law itself, in flaunting the duty of candour that the Government is under in the legal cases on prorogation; the very, very late revelation of some of the information that the First Minister referred to just a moment ago.

These are the most serious of times. Democracy wanes and dictatorship waxes not in one single moment, but in a series of fatal moments. Even in Rome—of course, the Prime Minister likes to talk about his classical education, though I saw that maybe his classics tutors may disagree—but, even in Rome, a dictator appointed by the Senate could not ignore the Senate, until one day a dictator came along who decided otherwise and claimed that he and the people were as one. Not content on modelling himself on Churchill, I think the Prime Minister now sees himself as a mini Caesar. You've got to say that even Cicero would probably have the whip removed under this Prime Minister. More Cabinet Ministers have had the whip removed in the last few days than has ever happened in history. Even his own brother now says he won't be standing in the next election. What does that say about what we are dealing with, the unique times that we are facing?

Dictatorship does not happen in a single step but in a series of small wounds that, over time, fester and infect the entire body. It's no exaggeration, I think, to say that having a British Prime Minister with such a wilful disregard for probity and democracy means we are living through times as dangerous as those of the 1930s, and I don't just mean that this five-week prorogation is the longest since 1930 and that the 15 October election date that is again being pushed today by the Leader of the House would be the first not on a Thursday since 1931. The populist English nationalism of Boris Johnson conjures up the memory more of Oswald Mosley than that of Ramsay MacDonald. It's for this reason that we have no hesitation in joining with the Labour Party in promoting the substantive motion that is before us, and which I hope we will pass in this Chamber today, and also, hopefully, some of the amendments we may be able to persuade the Labour benches to support as well.

Our opponents here declare that this debate is pointless and will achieve nothing. In doing so, they are revealing their contempt for our Welsh democracy. In doing so, they are laying bare their own utter inadequacy. Since the Senedd was established—I'm not going to refer to the party to my right here, to my hard right and probably more as well—Conservatives have struggled to slough off their identity and reputation as the English party in Wales. In the course of 20 years some of them managed to acquire the odd greenish tinge, maybe, but I say to the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales, your undemocratic behaviour as a party and as a Government in Westminster over these last few weeks and months has killed off the idea of a Welsh Conservative Party stone dead. Alun Cairns, as Secretary of State for Wales, carries just about legitimacy here in this country now as Carrie Lam does in Hong Kong.

Now, I come on to the amendments. I think it is important to say that—[Interruption.] Yes, go on.

You've just said, prior to your attack on the Secretary of State for Wales, that you feel that the green tinge, as I think you put it, that the party on this side of the Chamber has acquired over the last 10 years is being washed away, and then you went on to broad-brush-stroke the group on this side of the Chamber with the party in Westminster. Surely, that's you not showing respect for devolution, because we are here today to hear your arguments, to listen to this debate, from all parties here, and to make our own minds up, and yet you don't appear to be willing to listen to us.

Look, now is your opportunity to show that clear green water, if you like. There's a motion that you'll be voting in favour of, or against, this afternoon. Take that opportunity to declare your own independence, if that is what you wish to do.

Now, I think the amendments that we have tabled are in the spirit of trying to create unity across this Chamber. They are certainly not an attempt to in any way divide us unnecessarily. I don't think they're extraneous, because they're very much related either directly to the Brexit crisis or they raise the broader question of the democratic crisis that, actually, I think was brought home to us by the leader of the Brexit Party here, because he said, 'Whatever we say here, of course, it's immaterial, because Westminster can ignore us', and, though probably by accident, he has hit on a central challenge that we face that has been laid bare in these times. And it's not just me that has made that argument, but, of course, several senior members of the Labour Party represented here as well.

Amendment number 6, which I would hope the Welsh Government would be in a position to support, asks for the assessments carried out by the Cabinet Office of the harmful impact of crashing out—the so-called Yellowhammer report—to be published in full. I understand that the shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, on 4 September said that he would be asking his Welsh Government colleagues to be making that case. He said, 'I will, but I'm not sure that me calling for it is enough to get it published', he admitted, but he did agree that it would be useful for the Welsh Government to make that publication and, indeed, he's speaking as former director of public prosecutions.

A further amendment, amendment 2 we've tabled,

'calls for article 50 to be revoked' if we're faced with an immediate prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit. Again, I believe there should be cross-party agreement for this. It's essentially using revocation as a last resort option and I believe there has been support expressed for that from Labour Members, and, so, again, we would hope that it would be possible for us to achieve some degree of cross-party unity here.

A third amendment we've tabled states that, in the event of a general election being called before or instead of a referendum, then pro-remain parties should campaign on a policy of revoking article 50 and remaining in the European Union. The very simple reason for this is that, effectively, though we prefer, as set out in the motion, for there to be a referendum, because we believe that's the best means of resolving the Brexit crisis, if that is denied, however, then, effectively, a general election becomes a proxy referendum and you'll have on the one hand pro-Brexit parties with a very simple message, which is, basically, a 'no deal' Brexit. On the remain side, we also need a clear message, and, if it is effectively a substitute for a referendum, a surrogate, then what we need then is pro-remain parties to be adopting a simple policy of revoke and remain, and, indeed, I think the Counsel General has himself expressed that view on 9 July in the Senedd—that he hoped that the Labour Party should be advocating remain in its manifesto in a general election under the kind of circumstances that I've set out.

The last amendment refers to this issue of the democratic crisis that we face. It's a genuine attempt to bring parties together in Wales, to use the current crisis creatively, to use the moment to launch a constructive debate on Wales's future via a constitutional convention and a citizens' assembly, which would look at all options for Wales's constitutional future. Obviously, my party has a very clear constitutional position in terms of independence, but we could look at all the options that we face in order to resolve the democratic crisis that I think Brexit has brought to the fore. We put this proposal forward in an ecumenical spirit. Creating a new Wales cannot be the work of one party. It's the work of an entire nation, of all its people and all its perspectives. So, let's use this debate also not just to stand up against the harm that the undemocratic London minority Government is wilfully attempting to inflict on our country; let us use it as well to launch a positive movement for change to begin the work of creating a new Wales that will have an opportunity to participate and influence a new Europe too.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 5, tabled in his own name. Neil McEvoy.

Amendment 5—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that a no deal Brexit outcome, and the right wing nationalist agenda being pursued by the UK Government in London, could very soon lead to the full political separation of the nations currently making up the UK state, and, to prepare for this eventuality, resolves to:

a) engage with elected politicians at all levels in Wales to establish a constitutional convention, urgently tasked with mapping out what a future sovereign Wales would look like, setting out its future relationships with the constituent parts of the former United Kingdom;

b) create people's assemblies made up of interested members of the public in Wales, including the Youth Parliament of Wales, to contribute to the work of this constitutional convention;

c) engage the best legal minds in Wales and beyond to write a draft constitution for a future sovereign Wales, to be discussed, amended and ultimately adopted by the constitutional convention;

d) engage the best economists from Wales and beyond, committed to the economically and environmentally sustainable future of a sovereign Wales, to produce realistic pathways to achieve this;

e) constitute a committee of this Assembly comprised of interested AMs regardless of party affiliation, to define the remit and appoint a chair and vice-chairs for the constitutional convention and oversee its effectiveness and progress;

f) task the Welsh Government with providing the necessary resource to fully enable the above.

Amendment 5 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. If you've ever wondered why we need a sovereign Welsh Parliament in Wales, just look at Westminster. It's a fact now that the Government in London is being run by right-wing UK nationalists. Wales can do better. We cannot rely on Westminster, so we must start preparing to stand on our own two feet, and we need to take control of Wales.

The amendment I've introduced looks forward. It’s something concrete that can be done with the powers that we have in this Assembly. It’s not just hot air—they are things that we can do in a concrete way.

I support the spirit of amendment 4 from Plaid Cymru, but my amendment is more precise and it goes further. The amendment will enable the creation of a constitutional convention with people’s assemblies. The amendment also includes the participation of the Youth Parliament, so we can all start mapping out what a future sovereign Wales will look like. I won’t vote against the overall motion, but I disagree that proroguing the Westminster Parliament was a constitutional outrage, because the UK does not have a constitution, and nor does Wales, and that doesn’t have to be the case. Ireland has a constitution, France has a constitution, South Africa has a constitution, Japan has a constitution. Every state in the United States of America has a written constitution, showing that you don’t even need to be independent to have one. So, why not Wales?

Therefore, I’m saying that we must engage the best legal brains in Wales and beyond to draft a constitution for Wales. We need to engage the best economists to help build an economy that will work for our nation. No more of a Labour Government sitting here around waiting for the next company or corporation to close one of its factories in Wales and then basically saying, 'Oh, isn’t that a shame?', but not actually doing anything, or maybe Government Ministers or junior Ministers admitting that the Government doesn’t know what it’s doing in terms of the economy. Today we have an opportunity to start preparing for a future sovereign Wales. Mostly, we need to engage our people, and that’s why we need people’s assemblies. The Welsh people are the real experts on how our country should be run. So, we’ve got to come together and decide the Wales that we want. Wales could enshrine rights in the constitution of our future Wales—a right to a home, a right to free healthcare, a right to free education, a right to a job, and a right to free speech. Wales needs a people’s parliament—sovereign and legislating in the Welsh national interest. It’s an old concept—it’s called democracy. Decisions about Wales should be made in Wales. And, if we want to share our sovereignty, that’s our right too. It should be our right. That’s not what the UK does. The UK is a centralised state doing what is right not even for England, but for the south-east of England. It’s time for us in Wales to prepare for the future Wales that we can and will create. Amendment 5 does that. I urge you all to support it. Diolch yn fawr.

Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. When the people of Wales voted in 2016, they made it abundantly clear that they wanted to leave the European Union. Fifty-two and a half percent of voters in Wales chose to leave the EU, and all but five areas of the country delivered a 'leave' result from their counts. Welsh voters may have cast their votes for a number of different reasons, but the result remains that Wales voted to leave. Of course, since that time, we’ve had many debates on the intricacies of Brexit, its implications for Welsh businesses and communities and how the Assembly can best prepare the country for life once we finally leave the European Union. In that time I’ve asked many questions of the First Minister about Wales’s preparedness for Brexit, the ongoing discussions he and his Government are having with UK colleagues, and how we can work together to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit. 

Sadly, Labour, Lib Dem and Plaid MPs in Westminster are making the negotiations tougher with their actions. During this time of constitutional difficulty, we must all remember why we are here, and that is fundamentally to make Wales a better place. As a country, we need to move from this current impasse, and we need to move forward together. And, as a Conservative, I hope very much that my party will continue to be a broad church that listens and respects different positions and different views.

The leader of Plaid Cymru earlier tried to suggest that I can no longer lead the Welsh Conservatives in this place, and he would expect me to extremely disagree with that point. What I've tried to do since the Brexit referendum is respect the outcome of the referendum result, where people voted to leave the European Union. And I put it to the leader of Plaid Cymru that he and his party should therefore no longer call themselves 'The Party of Wales', given he's trying to overturn the referendum result, where the majority of the Welsh people voted to leave the European Union. 

Now, the positions of each of the leaders of the political parties in this Assembly is well versed, and today's debate just serves as another opportunity not to say anything new or different, but just to rehearse tired lines and repeat much of what Assembly Members have said before. And we've heard all that so far this afternoon.

Now, I understand, respect and accept the Llywydd's position in allowing this debate to take place following the request by the Welsh Government and indeed by Plaid Cymru. Whilst I fully accept the strong views and the range of views, however, whether we like it or not, the Assembly does not have a direct competence on this issue. Members should be engaging with their MPs, businesses and communities to ensure that they are best prepared to leave the European Union. Whilst the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru seem to have all the time to endlessly debate, we are working across Wales to ensure that Wales is ready post Brexit. I am concerned that the Assembly—

Will you take an intervention?

I will in a minute. 

I am concerned that the Assembly is debating this motion today, contradicting the devolutionary process, and using a Westminster competence to grandstand. Every constituency in Wales is represented by a Member of Parliament, and it's their job to directly represent the views of constituents on Brexit, and the way in which the UK Government is leading the country out of the European Union. The people of Wales are not without a voice on this matter. 

Now, Members of this Chamber would be justifiably alarmed if colleagues in Westminster decided to use their process to call a special debate on the state of our health services in north Wales, or the underfunding of our education system. And I give way to the Member from Mid and West Wales. 

I thank you for giving way, but I'm a little bit confused about some of the things you've said, and I just want to give you a chance to make them a bit clearer. Were you really saying that, in a nutshell, today's a waste of time, that we needn't have bothered coming here to hear the views of the people of Pembrokeshire, where I live, and represent, as well as you? I just want to be clear about that, that you think that proroguing Parliament is okay, because you're supporting it, but, equally, silencing voices of the people in Wales in this Assembly is okay as well.

No, I'm making the point that we do not have direct responsibilities for what we're actually talking about today. That's the point I'm making to the Member for Mid and West Wales. And I now give way to the former First Minister. 

I'm grateful. Two observations, really. First of all, it's quite common in Westminster to debate issues and matters that relate to other countries. And so Westminster has debated, certainly in the past few years, the situation in Yemen, in Syria, just to give two examples where there is no influence at all for the UK Government and the UK Parliament. Having a direct influence or direct power does not mean that you have no right to debate an issue. 

Secondly and very briefly—I'm grateful to him for the intervention—I agree with him in terms of what he says about his party being a broad church. Will he then condemn the purges against the Conservative MPs who have been thrown out in the last few days?

I've made it absolutely clear that my party should remain a broad church. I believe the Conservative Party is a broad church and its success relies on that basis, and I would hope that those loyal Conservative Members would actually find a path back to where they belong in the Conservative Party.

Now, of course, there's no doubt that the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament has been met with condemnation from both Welsh Labour and, indeed, from Plaid Cymru, despite, as I'm sure Members would have seen, that the prorogation of Parliament was ruled constitutionally legal. However, following events in Westminster over the last few days, this motion is now, quite frankly, out of date. It's now highly likely that we will have a general election in the near future instead of a Queen's Speech. 

Now, I had hoped that if there was going to be an Assembly debate, the Welsh Government would at least use it as an opportunity to tell us exactly where we are now with Wales's preparations for a 'no deal' Brexit and what work they were doing to help secure a deal, but sadly that is not the case. Instead, this afternoon's motion seeks to continue to highlight the breakdown of relations between the Welsh and UK Governments, when, really, what the Welsh Government should be doing is working with them to bring about a deal. Today's motion should have been an opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Welsh Government as Members of this Chamber are elected to do, rather than use Assembly time and resources to point fingers at the Prime Minister and the UK Government.

Constitutionally, the UK Government has taken a big step—a big step towards delivering the result that the people of Wales voted for. If the Welsh Government does not want to see a 'no deal' Brexit, then they need to get off their high horse and do whatever they can to support the UK Government to get a deal that protects and delivers for Welsh businesses and communities. A two-hour tantrum of a debate in this Chamber will not help Welsh businesses and Welsh industry.

The Welsh Government tells us that a 'no deal' Brexit means fewer jobs, lower incomes, a greater risk of poverty for people in communities across Wales. So, my question is: what is the Welsh Government doing about it? In my mind, simply holding a debate to criticise the UK Government does nothing for Wales. This is not a great advert for investors to come to Wales or the image we want to portray around the world. Today's debate is nothing more than a great display of political immaturity. 

For all its talk about 'no deal' Brexit and its impact on Wales, the Welsh Government and its friends in Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have decided that political point scoring was just more important than delivering a deal that meets the needs of the people of Wales. However, it is clear that this UK Parliament can no longer make a decision on Brexit. The only alternative that is before us all now is a UK general election to elect a new Parliament that represents the will of the people. I hope the First Minister and other Members will use their influence on colleagues in Westminster to ensure that this can happen at the earliest opportunity, especially when the First Minister has made it quite clear that a general election should be called.

Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, it will come as no surprise that the Welsh Conservatives will be voting against this party-political broadcast of a motion, and I shall end by making one of my own to the people of Wales: the only party that respects the voice of the people of Wales and that will implement its wishes is the Welsh Conservatives, and we will work tirelessly where we can with our Westminster colleagues to bring forward a deal that ensures the smoothest possible transition out of the European Union.

I want to start by saying that it is absolutely right we should have come together to discuss Brexit today. The unprecedented events in Westminster, the very real threat of an anti-democratic, devastating 'no deal' Brexit demands that Wales should debate these matters here in our own National Assembly. Given the enormous impact a 'no deal' Brexit would have on the people of Wales and on the budgets, policies and programmes enacted by the Welsh Government, it is astonishing that anyone could argue with the idea that this should be debated as a matter of urgency. So, yes, of course it is absolutely right we should be debating this today. What should give pause for thought on the Conservative benches is not the validity of this debate, but the validity of their right to look themselves in the mirror tomorrow morning. They know, I know, everyone knows that many in their number simply do not believe the lines they feel forced to parrot in order to give a Welsh veneer of credibility to Boris Johnson's gamble with this country's future. I do pay tribute to David Melding and the way he has provided intellectual, honest and insightful commentary throughout these last few turbulent days. Beyond that mention, I'm not going to name names, but you know who you are on those benches, and you don't have the excuse of being led by Andrew R.T. Davies anymore.

Wales has a right to expect better. You can make your voices heard in the same way that 21 of your colleagues made their voices heard in Parliament—MPs including the Father of the House, Winston Churchill's grandson and the last Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am asking you this today, that in this moment of crisis for Wales and the UK, if Philip Hammond can stand up and be counted, can you not do the same? Can you not tell us the truth—that you are horrified by the notion of a 'no deal' Brexit, appalled by the anti-democratic antics of the Prime Minister and shamed to see good members of your party, including a former Member of this Assembly, ditched by the sect that has taken over your party in Westminster? I give way to Andrew R.T. Davies.

I am grateful to the Member for Torfaen for giving way. Are you saying it's undemocratic when the Prime Minister's been on his feet for the last 24 hours calling for a general election so he can put his argument to the people and the people can decide whether they want that argument? And the Prime Minister himself has emphasised the point that he wants a deal. So, why will you not support a general election so that the people can have their say?

I don't trust the Prime Minister, who has ducked and dived, twisted and turned, and who has no credibility on this issue, with an election on Brexit. I think it was absolutely right to oppose a general election yesterday, to try and lock in this Prime Minister on the most important issue of our age.

The only defence that the Prime Minister is offering for his behaviour is that he is trying to honour the 2016 Brexit vote. But let's examine what people are saying today. A poll this week was absolutely devastating about the Prime Minister's approach. Voters regard Johnson's suspension of Parliament as undemocratic by 46 per cent to 32 per cent. The Prime Minister's decision to throw 21 of his MPs, including two former Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the grandson of Winston Churchill, out of his party is also viewed as undemocratic by 45 per cent to 32 per cent. Only a fifth of voters think people voted in 2016 to leave with no deal. The Prime Minister has no mandate for no deal, not from Parliament, not from the people and certainly not from this Assembly, which has repeatedly voted against a 'no deal' Brexit. By a margin of 2:1, voters think Johnson cares more about his own personal interest than the national interest. The poll also shows that voters believe by 3:1 that no deal would be bad for their family's living standards, and by 2:1 that it will leave Britain's economy weaker and will see the NHS get worse. Finally, the poll found that people do not want a general election but they do want a new public vote.

We have heard a lot in this Assembly about respecting the views of the public when it comes to Brexit, and I hope Members are happy to afford people what they want and give them a final say on this, because there's a continuing human cost to all this. Just this week we saw the Tata Steel announcement in Newport, and we all know there are businesses up and down Wales making active decisions not to invest, not to take people on, while the threat of no deal looms on the horizon.

Now, it is incumbent on us, then, in this Assembly to work together across party boundaries. We are fond of saying that we are different to Westminster and reject the yah-boo politics of the Commons, but this week we are lagging behind the MPs. They showed what can be achieved when Labour, Lib Dem, Plaid, SNP and, yes, some Tories, worked together in the national interest to oppose Boris Johnson's dangerous gamble. We need to do the same here.  

I think the enduring image of the Boris Johnson Government—which, I believe, will be mercifully short-lived—will be the sight of Jacob Rees-Mogg laid out on the front bench in Parliament: the very image of disinterested privilege, someone who can afford not to care. If we do nothing else in this Chamber today, I want us to consider what the enduring image of this place will be when the history of Brexit is written. We still have the opportunity to make that an image of tolerance, co-operation and defiance in the face of economic vandalism. I plead with Members from across the Chamber—especially over there—to stand up and be counted, to add their voice against 'no deal', to add their support to giving people back their voice. Give the people a final say. 

So, after months of will he/won’t he?, now we know the calibre of our Prime Minister, and I do not say it with admiration. Boris Johnson is a man who is without any sense of shame or, indeed, any care for the weight of history and how wanting it will find him. When Johnson was elected, he was commonly considered to be an experiment, a, 'Once more unto the EU, dear friends', a last-chance, throw-the-busted-kitchen-sink-at-em car crash waiting to happen. And, my, hasn’t that crash happened now? As Robert Peston has said, the events in Westminster—the botched proroguing, the enforced deselections, the unveiled threats—are not a constitutional crisis; no, they are a constitutional failure. There is a rot that has set into the system in Westminster that is so deep it cannot be repaired. It will continue to eat away at that institution just as the building around it crumbles to dust, and in the midst of it all, Boris Johnson, our Ozymandias, urging potential trading partners to, 'Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair', whilst nothing beside him remains.

So, we have come to this moment when the Government in Westminster is exposed for the sham that it is and all to deliver a lie scrawled on the side of a bus. Johnson only has himself to blame for the early onset failure of his Government. May had set down her own blood red lines. She enveloped herself in them and they boxed her in, but Johnson, ever the maverick, took a different tack. He wrote his red lines in invisible ink, so that they could be rubbed out whenever that version of events became inconvenient. Only, he didn’t realise that that vile spot of ink had stained his hands and that he was now a marked man, marked just as are his days in office.

So, as with one hand he wrote instructions for his negotiators, with the other, he erased them, and showed that they were designed to fail. A sleight of hand, a trick, a game. Only, in this particular parlour game, the lives of my constituents are on the line, the lives of people who rely on medicines and are scared of whether they will have access to them. Boris Johnson is also willing to cause misery to the lives of EU nationals who have made their homes in our communities. Well, I am not, and neither is my party. Llywydd, I'm glad that we have been recalled today, because what is happening in Westminster this week will affect the lives of our constituents profoundly. And I do not share the lack of ambition for this place put forward by Members of some of the regressive benches, who could barely be bothered to be here at all. We have to step up to the mark.

Plaid Cymru’s amendment 4 calls on the Government to establish a Welsh constitutional convention. Recently, at the Eisteddfod Genedlaethol, I listened to the former First Minister, Carwyn Jones, explaining that he could foresee independence coming about whether we like it or not. I do like it, by the way, even though he may not. There’s a 'no deal' Brexit; Scotland gains its independence; a successful border poll is held. What then? Does anybody in this Chamber truly believe that a United Kingdom of England and Wales would be workable, let alone desirable? It is, therefore, imperative on this Welsh Government to start doing the groundwork now: establish a Welsh constitutional convention or a commission, give it the remit of setting out the options and challenges to be met under different future scenarios, get the people involved via citizens assemblies, set the democratic pathways for each choice, a choice that will ultimately be made by the people of Wales. There is no reason not to do this, save an ideological attachment to a union that is dying in front of our eyes. If you fail to do this, it could come to be seen as the worst dereliction of duty in the history of devolution. You will think of these words as Wales is cast adrift without a compass. Because I believe that the day is coming, and soon, when we will need to leave Westminster behind.

A few months ago, Donald Tusk remarked that there is 'a special place in hell' reserved for those who propagated Brexit without the first idea of how it would work. Well, just as at the start of Dante’s Inferno, we find ourselves

'within a forest dark, for the straightforward pathway had been lost.'

We need to change course.  There is nothing gallant or heroic in pursuing a Brexit that would cause untold chaos for our communities. If there is no referendum, and none currently seems forthcoming, then article 50 should be revoked. But the sunlit glade that will get us out of that forest is wide open ahead of us, and that is an independent Wales.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I make this contribution first and foremost as a unionist—I do hope not as one of the last unionists. But it is time, I think, for all unionists to recognise the peril we are in. It's the greatest peace-time crisis since the Irish crisis.

The challenge is to achieve a meaningful Brexit that does not leave Scotland, and remainers in England and Wales, embittered. Only a via media can truly recognise the depth of the referendum result in all its complexity. Via media: the middle way favoured by so many Roman proverbs. I know we've had classical references earlier from the great classicist we have in this Chamber, the First Minister. Sadly, the via media on offer, a reasonable deal negotiated by the UK and the EU, has been dismissed because too many have pursued a zero-sum solution. Zero-sum outcomes cannot produce unity. Without a strong spirit of unity, no constitutional settlement is ever secure.

I have to say I agree with Stephen Kinnock MP: the deal now on offer from the EU, adapted after negotiations with the Labour frontbench, is overwhelmingly in the national interest. We should unite and accept it. The notion that somehow it's being stopped by an undemocratic backstop is preposterous. A majority of people in Northern Ireland support the backstop, as do the majority in Britain. It is only really one party that opposes it. We're told in Parliament there are barely 100 MPs that find it unacceptable. And, for this, we're going to lose a reasonable outcome and a middle way to achieve Brexit in a way that honours properly the full complexity of the referendum. It is a pitiful situation that we're in as a result of this sort of attitude. 

And 'no deal' was never offered as a serious outcome by Brexiteers in the referendum; indeed they were inclined to run a mile whenever it was mentioned. And, even if it was, in secret, their heart's desire, things have changed since 2016. The World Trade Organization—that great body now that is going to save us—the World Trade Organization is in crisis. Do any of you ever read about their current situation? Its arbitration mechanisms, the very basis of free trade, are under assault from the USA and China—about the only thing the USA and China agree on at the moment in trade. That's the peril we are in at the moment. 

The truth is that 'no deal' is a high risk strategy, but it is a high risk to be forced on the most vulnerable, and I will not be part of that. Deputy Presiding Officer, on the eve of the Peterloo massacre, 200 years ago, William Hazlitt wrote the following, which has resonated in democracies ever since:

'The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves.'

That's true for the person, for the party, for the nation. The love of power is the love of self.

In a time of crisis, we need a great generosity of heart. The last thing we should be doing is turning on our EU partners and calling them enemies. And at home—[Interruption.] And, at home, we need to interpret, bargain—yes, bargain—and adapt as circumstances demand. For, as Edmund Burke wrote:

'A statesman, never losing sight of principles, is to be guided by circumstances; and judging contrary to the exigencies of the moment he may ruin his Country for ever.'

Deputy Presiding Officer, I started as a unionist; I wish to end as a Conservative. Our party in essence was constructed in the 1920s by Stanley Baldwin. He made it a home for liberals. Over half the Liberal Party, in effect, shifted into the Conservative Party, led, of course, by Winston Churchill. For the next 95 years, we were in office for 63 of them. It's no time to drive the liberals out of the Conservative Party.

Harold Macmillan was a Conservative Prime Minister who, Neil Kinnock once said, represented a generation of Tories who recognised duty and pursued the objective of one nation. The current Tory Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is on course to have the shortest stay in 10 Downing Street of any of its incumbents, and he has no intention of governing in the interests of one nation. So, I welcome hugely—unlike others—this opportunity, as the elected Welsh Labour Assembly Member for Islwyn, to sit in this Chamber today, in this sitting Welsh Parliament, to debate the current aberrations of the Tory so-called Government and their magnitudinal consequences for the people that I represent. 

Harold Macmillan, when asked what was most likely to knock Governments off course, famously stated, 'Events, dear boy, events.' Since the National Assembly for Wales has been rightly recalled, we have seen unprecedented events and attacks upon our parliamentary democracy from a calamitous Conservative cabal. And a week indeed might have been a long time in politics, but the last 24 hours have shown that a day is a pretty lengthy period as well. So, I support fully the substantive joint motion before us today. It is indeed a constitutional outrage for the Prime Minister to attempt to close down Parliament for more than five weeks at a time of the largest national crisis since world war two. And we saw the same Boris Johnson on the doorstep of No. 10 mere days ago stating clearly that he did not want a general election—he did not want a general election. Yesterday, he told the House of Commons he wanted one. So, this is a puppet, a poodle Prime Minister being manipulated by Dominic Cummings, a maverick political adviser, playing dangerous kinds of games without any care for the real and dire consequences for our nation or our citizens. And, in representing my constituents in Islwyn, it is my job also to ensure that they and their families do not suffer from the dramatic, cataclysmic negative consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit and its longer term fallout.

My Labour colleague the Member of Parliament for Islwyn, Chris Evans, should and must have the opportunity to hold the Executive of this United Kingdom to account, and attempts by the UK Government to both silence and ostracise our mother legislature are sinister, and, in my view, at all costs have to be resisted. The sacking, unprecedently, of dissenting Conservative MPs is further evidence of sinister action from a tinpot dictator Prime Minister. Democracy demands and requires that decision making is exposed to sunlight, and, with the acquiescence of the House of Lords, legislation will make the statute book that ensures the UK does not automatically default into a cataclysmic Brexit.

This current crisis in our body politic and in our national life can now only be determined, in my opinion, by the ultimate and timely calling of a general election, which is in our national interest at a time of crisis, national and constitutional. A referendum to ensure that the decision of whether the UK should leave the EU in the light of all that has become known since 2016 should be determined by the British electorate, with the full facts in front of them. No democrat can or should fear the final say being made by the British public via a general election and a referendum once and for all. We serve, all of us, as representatives of the people, and I am hugely conscious that the people that I represent want resolution, a final say for themselves, for the future of their families, their jobs, their well-being, and, finally, national unity and national cohesion. 

Leaving the European Union with no deal will be disastrous for Wales and the UK. We've heard others this afternoon telling us about the extreme challenges facing us if we fail to prevent a 'no deal' Brexit. Now, I hear 'people have voted to leave', and, yes, indeed they did, but the 52 per cent didn't vote to leave with no deal of any sort whatsoever. No, they voted to leave, but without any vision of what leaving would mean. That's what happened, and that's what has brought about this political mess and the splits in our society and the polarisation and the anger we are facing now.

And, yes, there is already suffering in the health sector as medicines and prescription drugs have become increasingly difficult to obtain over the past few months, as international pharmaceutical companies stockpile to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit now. In the surgery last week, there was no supply of Epilim, an epilepsy drug, or Sinemet, a treatment for Parkinson's, available anywhere. People are facing going without their tablets now, putting their health and lives at risk, whilst every pharmacist is running around trying to find a supply of the appropriate drugs and trying to persuade GPs to prescribe different drugs, but these are the best drugs available for the patients, which were originally chosen by experts in hospitals, and you want the GP to come up with an alternative that will work just as well. Well, our patients are going from surgery to surgery and pharmacist to pharmacist looking for the drug on the prescription, with real concerns now. That's the reality on the ground in our communities today.

And, with the winter approaching, we will need flu vaccines, and there will be significant challenges in obtaining these vaccines without an agreement with the European Union. 'Just get on with it', therefore, means a flu epidemic, with serious illness and deaths among our most vulnerable people in the absence of the main tool to prevent that. A flu epidemic will come this year. It's already hit Australia—it's on its way. So, we will be facing a flu epidemic without the main defence against that epidemic. 'Just get on with it' will just mean looking at my patients and seeing them suffering, and worse. 

Many of our most common drugs—some we are entirely reliant on, such as insulin—at the moment aren't being produced in Britain at all. We are entirely reliant on Europe for our whole supply. That's why our royal colleges are so concerned. Medicine, health, research are all part of a wonderful European network that has delivered for the people of Wales, the people of the UK as a whole. And the partnerships in the development of drugs and treatments, holding international research trials, are all at stake and are expected to be destroyed by a 'no deal' Brexit. The Euratom deal is at risk, which guarantees a supply of medical radioactive isotopes that are produced on the continent and disappear in hours, with a half life of six hours—things such as technetium and molybdenum. The half life of these is very short indeed and using them to treat cancer in the UK is entirely reliant on inter-European collaboration of the highest order to guarantee the success of cancer treatments here in Wales. Ripping this network to shreds with 'no deal' will be extremely damaging for our population here in Wales.

With prorogation preventing the UK Parliament from meeting, which will mean the closure of the Westminster Parliament in its entirety—this isn't a recess; this is the closure of the Parliament—it won't be possible to discuss the details of the availability of drugs and medicines or anything else for a full five weeks. At such a critical time in the history of our nation that is a disgrace. Support our amendments and the motion.

I wish to begin by expressing my surprise that the Welsh Government has seen fit to recall this Assembly on an issue that is not devolved and relates to procedures in another place. I can only speculate on the reaction here if Westminster was recalled, for example, to discuss some future crisis in the NHS in Wales. The fact is the current parliamentary session in Westminster has been the longest for nearly 400 years, and it has been one of the least active. A new Queen's Speech is overdue and needed if the UK Government is to focus on crucial public priorities. But the Welsh Government has chosen to turn a blind eye to this need and has chosen instead to indulge itself in pointless and ineffective political posturing. We have seen the unedifying spectacle of Labour and Plaid Assembly Members desperately trying to look the most outraged.

We already know the position of the Welsh Government on Brexit. They will campaign for 'remain' in any future EU referendum. Presumably that means that they will campaign against any deal to leave the EU negotiated by a Corbyn Government. I think we should remember at this stage a few facts. By a clear majority the British people voted to leave the European Union in a referendum in 2016. The Prime Minister is committed to actioning the instruction of the people, preferably with a deal, without if need be. Following the recent meeting in Europe, including the G7, there is a more positive mood about the prospect of a deal. However, this is being undermined by MPs who claim to want to stop a 'no deal' Brexit but whose aim is to stop Brexit totally. If Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and SNP politicians wanted to stop a 'no deal' Brexit, they should have voted for Mrs May's withdrawal agreement instead of playing games for party political advantage.

When Parliament reconvenes on 14 October, after the party conference season, there will still be time to discuss Brexit. I strongly believe that there will be a further move in Europe to get a deal in the next few weeks. [Interruption.] Yes, go on, then.

I just wanted to ask about this constant thing that you're saying, that there are negotiations happening. The Belgian MEP Philippe Lamberts used a swearword and said there were no negotiations happening at the moment—that there is no negotiation because there's no compromise on the backstop. There are no negotiations. Will you please stop lying in this Parliament that there are?

What it is, Bethan, I think I have taken your point, but the fact is, don't forget, there's a negotiation between 27 countries against one. We are one. Three years have already elapsed. You have wasted—[Interruption.] Look, Theresa May achieved up to 97 per cent of agreement. We all know about it. But it's a backstop not from Northern Ireland, but from the Labour Party. They're not agreeing with anything. You are also joining with them in all the other areas. I hope they will be successful in negotiations, but I strongly believe that the real constitutional outrage is that Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have refused to honour the result of the referendum and act on the clear instructions of the Welsh and British people to leave the European Union.

Deputy Presiding Officer, one point I am hearing a lot—quite a few Members have mentioned Churchill. He has been a great Prime Minister of this country. His photograph people see with a bulldog. Don't forget, Boris Johnson is a bull terrier. He will protect British interests. At the moment we are—[Interruption.]

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not realise that Winston Churchill was not only a proponent of a European union, but actually, before the second world war, wanted the UK and France to unite as one country. So, please, you can't use Winston Churchill as someone you can portray as anti-European. He was quite the opposite.

No, but the thing is, I just gave an example because a lot of Members mentioned Churchill here. I'm talking—. I'm comparing him a little bit with Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson is a family man. I know he is a different person. He is trying to protect the interests of Great Britain, and, don't forget, we are losing the history. The whole world is watching. Democracy is at stake, because the fact is we are quoted as being—. You know, our Parliament is the mother of all Parliaments. Look at those countries where there is no democracy. We can't agree on one thing in the last so many years. What we are saying is it is by the people, of the people, and for the people. My point is, the United Kingdom—. Our public in the United Kingdom have decided to leave the European Union. Why are you dragging your feet? Why don't you agree to go for an election and do it once and for all? Thank you very much.

I'd like to just draw attention to the clarification that Mark Reckless made over point 1 of his motion, where he said the criticism of the impartiality of the presiding officer of the legislature was directed at the Speaker of the House of Commons. I'd say, let's be absolutely clear that the Dirprwy Llywydd and the Llywydd act impartially in this Chamber, both here and outside the Chamber in meetings we have with them. I think it's worth making that clear.

The speech made by Neil McEvoy, who's now gone—. Neil McEvoy said that it's not a constitutional outrage but that it's outrageous that the constitution relies on the purity of the sitting Prime Minister. I actually used almost those same terms in the Labour group this morning when I described how I felt about the constitution. It is a weakness of the UK constitution, and I think that was reflected in the words that Mark Reckless used as well about the House of Commons: this is a weak constitution, and, indeed, a failing constitution. And I would say that we would probably arrive at different solutions to that failing constitution, but nonetheless I think it has become an agreement across this Chamber that the UK constitution needs to change.

I would say we need a codified written constitution in this country that clearly establishes a separation of power of executive and parliament and also is true to the principle of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity suggests that power is devolved to the level most appropriate to the nature of the decision that is being made. It's perfectly possible through cross-party consensus to achieve a recommendation that would achieve that objective. But, I would say the key to unlocking that constitutional reform doesn't lie in the form of a referendum. I've spoken at length in this Chamber about my objection to the principle of referendums that are barely democratic, and I draw the Chamber's attention to a speech that was made by Bernard Jenkin MP, himself considered to be an arch Brexiteer. He said in Parliament on Wednesday,

'The bitterness of tonight’s exchanges reflects the breakdown of our shared understanding about which mandate is legitimate: the representative or the direct. We now have a constitution containing competing ideas of legitimacy, and unless we are to abandon referendums this House should be ready to implement popular decisions that it does not like, but it has shown some reluctance to do so.'

I would argue that the time for referendums is coming to an end. We cannot see further referenda in this country without dividing this country irrevocably. And, therefore, what do we do instead? Well, the key, in my view, to unlocking constitutional reform is electoral reform, and, before we can do anything further with constitutional change, I think we need root-and-branch electoral reform both here in this Senedd and at Westminster. I think that's the fundamental key to changing the constitution of this country without the need to go for a referendum. A fully proportional electoral system would require more than one party to advocate constitutional change on which they can find agreement, and, indeed, then would require those parties to work together to achieve it. I believe that that system of electoral reform will allow and achieve that. But with its call for a referendum, that is not what the Plaid amendment seeks to do, and that is why I won't be supporting that Plaid amendment.

It's important that today we explain how dangerous and objectionable Johnson's act in proroguing the UK Parliament was at a period of such crisis, and it's also important that we state how damaging to Wales a 'no deal' Brexit would be. But we can do more than simply express our views, because there is also an opportunity today to discuss a way forward through all of this confusion. I believe that political leaders are duty-bound to provide hope, to lead discussion, and, in the current context, that means encouraging our fellow country people to truly consider what future is best for the communities of Wales. There is no doubt that Brexit, and a ‘no deal’ Brexit in particular, is being driven by a particular ideology that arises from a destructive kind of nationalism, which is narrow, right-wing and privileged. We must defeat this ideology which tramples on everyone that gets in its way. But it is important to bear in mind that not everyone who voted for Brexit was driven by that same ideology. The act of so many of our fellow country people in our poorest communities in voting for Brexit was an act arising from frustration, arising from a feeling of inequality, it was a cry against poverty and powerlessness. Pledges were made that life would be better following Brexit, but gradually the dream is being destroyed and more and more people are realising that it was all based on lies. And with that realisation comes the feeling of powerlessness once again, and we must guard against that.

We are duty-bound, as elected representatives of the people, not to allow hopelessness to take hold. So, I believe that we have two choices facing us as parliamentarians. We can put our heads in the sand and hope that, through some miracle, a way forward within the unequal, broken constitution that we currently have can be found, or we can face reality. The reality is that things must change. I happen to believe that independence for Wales—taking the reins for ourselves and deciding our own fate—is the best way forward. You all know that. You will know that that is my opinion. But look at amendment 4. Voting for amendment 4 doesn’t commit Wales to independence. What the amendment does is to commit us and the people of Wales to thinking in earnest about our constitutional future and then to bring options before the people of Wales. I do understand what Hefin’s had to say about referenda, but we must find a way of bringing options before the people of Wales.

Amendment 4 proposes a clear path forward: to hold a sensible debate that will reflect and gather together the range of views on how democracy in Wales should evolve, and it is the duty of Government, and no-one else, to lead the work. Now, the convention itself will not change anything, of course, but its conclusions could drive change and provide hope for a better future. We don’t need a talking shop, and that’s why our amendment proposes taking detailed options to the people at the end of these discussions. Let us consider and let us provide hope for everyone, including those in our poorest communities, so that they don't go back to feeling powerless and frustrated. And what better response from the Welsh Parliament to the impetuous actions of Johnson than starting a meaningful and hopeful discussion with our people on the future of our nation?    

I welcome the opportunity to rise in the Chamber this afternoon to speak in this debate, albeit I recognise the limitations of the actions that we can take. I do identify myself with many of the comments that David Melding made—the Conservative Party is nothing if it is not a broad church. Some people might find that odd coming from my mouth as a Brexiteer, but actually, as a Brexiteer, I passionately believe that voices have to be listened to, in whatever party they sit. But if the people have spoken, then you do have to act on the wishes and instructions of the people. And that’s what the referendum in 2016 was about. It was about seeking an instruction from the British people—Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland—as to how they wanted our relationship to be with the European Union.

I did have to refresh my mind as to exactly how the ballot paper looked, because I’ve heard so many people over the three years that have intervened say, 'Well, that wasn’t on the ballot paper', 'This wasn’t on the ballot paper', 'That was on the ballot paper'. To me, it was relatively simple: there was the word 'remain' and there was the word 'leave', and I would suggest that most, if not everyone, who walked into that ballot booth knew what they were voting for. Now, we can argue—[Interruption.] We can argue—[Interruption.] We can argue that there was a very broad range between the 'leave' and the 'remain' that people aspired to have. On the remain side, was it that we were to have a federal state of Europe such as Juncker has outlined over the last three years and increasing integration—and I’m hearing 'yes, yes' from some quarters—or was it the status—[Interruption.] Was it the status quo? 'Leave'—was it the break that is talked about on 31 October when no agreement is in place, or was it an agreement to be put in place and then we leave? And that’s the discussion that we've been arguing about for the last three years. Now people can argue as much as they want about what Boris Johnson has done over the last six weeks, but he has sought to bring this to a conclusion, and that has to be something—

Will you take an intervention?

—that has to be welcomed in politics. I’ll gladly take an intervention.

Thank you. You mentioned at the start of what you've just stated to this place that everybody wants a political party that’s a broad church and you supported that in its essence, so what is your view in regard to Boris Johnson’s suspension of a large wedge of your Conservative peers in Westminster?

What has happened with the suspension or the ejection of the 22 Members of Parliament was that it was made very clear to them before they voted that it was a matter of confidence and that confidence vote had to be adhered to. They chose not to stick to the confidence vote, therefore, the political principle is, if you don’t vote on confidence in your Government or your leadership, you leave the party. We’re seeing that in the Labour Party in Westminster at the moment.

But the point, the point I am making, is that what has happened in Westminster over the last couple of days has shown that Westminster has worked. I disagree with that legislation that’s come forward, but that legislation has come forward and has checked what the Government wants to do. Now, you can agree or disagree with it, and, as I said, I disagree with that piece of legislation, but it shows that Parliament has worked.

Now, the response of Boris Johnson and his Government is to say, ‘Right, Parliament has checked me. Let us go to the country; let us have that conversation with the country and seek a mandate from the country to deliver either the deal and we leave, or we hand the keys of No. 10—[Interruption.]—we hand the keys of No. 10 to the other parties so they can do it’. That’s called democracy, and I bitterly regret—I bitterly regret—the leader of Plaid Cymru making the comparison between the Prime Minister of this country and the chief executive of the Hong Kong administration, where people are on the streets fighting for democracy and actually dying for democracy there. You should retract that comment, because, ultimately, the Prime Minister of this country has said that he will go before the country and he will put his argument to this country. And it is you and the Labour Party and the other parties in Westminster that are stopping that happening. You can’t argue against that. That is called democracy. From other quarters in this Chamber today we've heard the word 'dictatorship', well, there’s no dictatorship with the Prime Minister standing at the despatch box in the House of Commons saying, 'Let us go to the country and ask them how they want this country to deliver on Brexit'. That is the question that we will face in the next four to five weeks, and that is what we must answer.

But, above all, what we mustn't shy away from is the instruction that we were given in 2016. I'm a Brexiteer, as everyone in this Chamber knows, but I believe in immigration. I believe immigration is a good thing for the country. I believe in trade; I believe that trade is a good for this country. And I believe that we learn from other people. I don’t believe in turning our backs on the world, but what I have learnt when I’ve been in politics and what I’ve seen in Brussels is an entity that I have chosen do I want this country to be a part of. I engaged in the debate and the discussion in the referendum. I put my flag up the mast. The country endorsed what I and 17.4 million other people chose to do. It is for us to enact and support that mandate and deliver it, and, in five, 10, 15, 20 years’ time, if politicians in manifestos want to overturn that, then so be it—that is called democracy. But to not enact the referendum result of 2016 will be a deeply destabilising time for this country, and we must engage with what is coming in the next four to five weeks with a general election that I urge the parties opposite to engage with so that the people can have a Government in Westminster that will deliver on their wishes.

I never thought that I would stand up here today, or anywhere for that matter, and pay tribute to Conservative MPs, but I am going to do that. I am going to pay tribute to their courage and their determination to put their country before their party. It takes some doing. We've seen some extraordinary scenes in Westminster in the past few days, even by Brexit standards, and we have seen—and you're going to hear the word again—a move taken to prevent democracy in action, to prorogue Parliament and to remove the right of those representatives to have a voice in democracy. Now, whichever way you try to frame this, and if you move it to its extreme, it is called a dictatorship. It is all very well and good getting up and shouting and saying that that is not the case, but it isn't the case any longer, because people had the power of their conviction yesterday to prevent it. So that is why we're not moving along this trajectory that was clearly going to end in a dictatorship, and not only a dictatorship on behalf of the whole country, but being a dictator as the leader of your own party.

Now, it takes a bit of doing, doesn't it, when you've only sat in Parliament as the Prime Minister for three days, to do and to achieve what Boris Johnson has managed. I don't think anybody will ever again have such a record of not achieving what he set out to do. I don't think anybody else will ever have the record that he now acquires of not taking back control, but absolutely losing control, because that is clearly what he has done. Now, it might be seen as fun and games if you're a millionaire, if, like Jacob Rees-Mogg, you can literally hedge your bets and open investment funds in the EU. It's not a great surprise, therefore, that we see him literally at rest on the green benches in Parliament. But the country and the people that I represent don't have those options available to them. Most people will have seen the Tory power grab for exactly what it was—an unprecedented abuse of Executive power. And Tories do seem to have a record of this, because the last outcry for proroguing Parliament was when John Major in 1997 did exactly the same so that he could bury the cash for questions debate. That was the last time. So, there is a record on this.

Brexiteers used to revere Parliament's sovereignty, but now they treat elected representatives with the same disdain as the judges, the civil servants and the journalists who dare to stand in their way, and they call them enemies of the people. That's exactly what they call them. Thankfully, my party and other opposition parties at Westminster, and those Conservative MPs that I've just mentioned, they outsmarted the bully boys. I see that Jo Johnson has just resigned, presumably to spend less time with his family. A 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic. We've heard today about operation Yellowhammer, and for me the news that really cut through was that the Government was stockpiling body bags. Body bags—I mean, can you really believe that? The fact is that the Brexit zealots have no moral authority to impose 'no deal' and I hope that they will soon have no legal right, either, because, whatever you say here today, no-one voted for a 'no deal' Brexit in 2016. All we heard back then was, 'We can have our cake and eat it', the trade deal would be easy—they were even outbidding themselves on how fast we could achieve that: one day, two days. I mean, it's just ridiculous. We were told that the UK would keep all the benefits of EU membership and we wouldn't have to incur any of the costs, and that the NHS would get an extra £350 million a week—that wasn't mentioned this week, by the way—and that it wouldn't be flogged off to Donald Trump. As I've said, I think that is absolutely the intention. But I think the biggest thing that came out this last week—and I do find it absolutely incredulous—was that Government Ministers were hinting that they would ignore the law that would stop a 'no deal' Brexit, and when we see rule-makers becoming rule-breakers it's called anarchy and when it comes from Government it's even worse. 

When core values are under threat and fundamental principles are trampled underfoot, it is the duty of each one of us to do everything possible to withstand that.

We are today proud of jointly tabling a motion that states that the recent actions of the UK Government are a constitutional outrage, and reminds us of the terrible perils of a 'no deal' Brexit: the warnings about threats to jobs; the warnings of chaos sounded by the Federation of Small Businesses; the warning by the recruitment companies that there's already a dearth of workers in some sectors; the fears of the red meat sector about leaving the EU with exports at their peak; the broader threat to our agricultural industry; the warning from the head of the Iceland food company that the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer the most; the warning from the OBR about the pressure on public expenditure and borrowing; and the warning from Airbus—which employs 7,000 people, remember, in Wales—saying that Brexit preparations are already costing them hundreds of thousands of pounds and are a threat to their potential future investments. In our ports, there is a clear warning: there will be chaos. And remember that trading through Holyhead, in my constituency, has grown by almost 700 per cent since the creation of the single market. And our car industry has already sounded more than a warning, I think you'll agree, about its attitude to Brexit. Yes, the evidence is clear.

Whilst I’ve always opposed any kind of Brexit and campaigned against Brexit, the evidence is clear about the particular and acute harm of a 'no deal' Brexit. But it’s not just us saying that. That’s why we on these benches are asking you to support not only the main motion today but also our amendments, one of which, amendment 6, calls for the publication of the Yellowhammer document, which will show, no doubt, that the UK Government itself is fully aware of the dangers of a crash-out 'no deal' Brexit, but is still ready to inflict that on the population.

We’re also making it clear in other amendments that we have to offer people a way out of such a disastrous scenario, and, in our view, the revocation of article 50 is a clear way out if there is no other way out.

And we also remind you in amendment 4 that there are other positive steps open to us as a small nation, and they must now all be on the agenda. I've always supported independence, not as an end in itself, but as a means to forge a new future and to set a new direction for Wales, and it's time we had that discussion through a national constitutional convention. 

Independence, I know, is an emotive word. It can be misused and it can be twisted, as, I think, it has been in the context of Brexit, but we know here what it means and what it can mean for Wales, and, to me, it conjures up opportunity, freshness—challenge, yes, certainly, but also real hope. I’ve been asked many times over the past three years, 'How come you want independence for Wales, but you still want to be in the EU?' And do you know what? In many ways, Brexit has helped explain what Welsh independence is and what it isn’t. Independence for Wales is in so many ways the diametric opposite of Brexit. Brexit is isolation. The birth of a Welsh state is internationalism and partnership within a British and European context. Brexit is exclusive. Welsh independence is inclusive. You’ve made Wales your home; why not make it your nation too? Brexit screams Rees-Mogg-style superiority of empire. My dream is for Wales to build its future as an equal to others; not better, just equal. And Brexit builds walls; building a new Wales is about building bridges. 'Why are you anti-British?', they ask me. I’m not. I’m not driven by being 'anti'; I’m 'pro'. I'm pro giving our children a better future. In fact, I could develop a real pride in being of these British isles if Wales were an independent country. Our neighbours in these islands are our friends. But I tell you this, what we have witnessed over these Brexit years—the lies, the intolerance, and this latest, shameful episode of undermining democracy—does make me ashamed to be a part of what has become a rotten British state. It’s time to rebuild afresh.

A word on the Brexit Party’s shameful amendment. To attack a legislature's chair or a presiding officer is to attack democracy. I was in the Catalan Parliament last week standing under the portrait of Carme Forcadell, who’s currently in prison for exercising her powers as a democratically elected presiding officer. And as for your clean-break Brexit, there’s nothing clean in your dirty deals that would ensure that it’s the poorest in this country who’d be left to rot as your privileged leaders lounge back disgracefully on their benches of entitlement. Vote for the motion and our amendments today. Let’s not be hoodwinked into thinking that our demise is an inevitability.

I've been in this place now for over 20 years and I have never seen a situation such as this one. A mess, shambles, chaos—there are plenty of words to describe the situation that we are in, but it’s a major problem for the UK and, of course, for Wales. And may I say that this Parliament, as the Parliament of the people of Wales, has every right to meet to discuss an issue that is crucially important to the people of Wales, whether it is devolved or not? This institution has the right to ensure that it gives voice to the concerns of the people of Wales. And I regret very much that many Members have not come here today. They stated beforehand that they wouldn't be here. Gareth Bennett, for example, said that he wouldn't be here today. Well, if he hadn’t have said that, no-one would have noticed, I have to say. But perhaps he'd be willing to give the day’s pay to a charity because he has taken a day’s pay today without turning up to do his work.

We have, Dirprwy Lywydd, a Prime Minister not elected by the people, one who refused to call an election when it suited him in July and August, who tried to close down the UK Parliament. And one of the reasons why we’re meeting today is because the UK Parliament is being muzzled. A UK Parliament, may I add, that was actually elected in 2017—a year after the referendum. A UK Parliament that was elected after people were asked if they wanted to back Theresa May and a hard-ish Brexit, and the people said ‘no’. There is no evidence, then, that the people want to see a ‘no deal’ Brexit. And, of course, we’re talking about somebody who has expelled some of his most respected MPs, and there are more. We’ve seen some political fratricide in our time, but this morning Jo Johnson took it to another level again.

And he has made claims that are patently false. Yes, we all say things in the Chamber that are based on facts, but they’re based on how we see the world. But you cannot say there has been negotiation with the European Union when it patently is untrue. The Irish Foreign Minister has said it, MEPs have said it, Commissioner Barnier has said it—there is no negotiation taking place. The UK hasn’t come up with any ideas at all as to where to go in the future. The idea that there’s a deal on the table waiting to be agreed in risible and something in which the British people are being deceived on. And anyway, if there was an election on 15 October, what would that mean? There might be a result that was inconclusive. Then what? Boris Johnson’s still Prime Minister, even though he may not even command a majority in Parliament. And if we really think that an election on 15 October will lead to better negotiating on 17 October, we are deluding ourselves. There are not even any negotiations planned for 17 October, because those negotiations are taking place already. So, we know that what he is claiming—that there is a deal about to be made—is untrue. It's completely untrue and it’s driven by a desire to see a ‘no deal’ Brexit and then, when the consequences hit, to blame others—to blame the people who are remainer,  to blame the people who weren’t supportive of a particular form of Brexit. ‘Not our fault, guv’—that’s what the political strategy is here, I’m afraid.

I met Boris Johnson many times when he was mayor of London. He was a very liberal-minded person, very clubbable and somebody who you could have a conversation with—a very different Boris Johnson to the one that I see now. I learned early on, however, that he was pretty much an empty vessel who was filled with ideas by his advisers. When he was mayor of London, he was fortunate enough to surround himself with people who were liberal-minded and who were sensible, and that’s what you heard from him. But now, the contents of the vessel have been replaced by something poisonous and bilious. We now see somebody who’s prepared to sacrifice his own party in order to get what he wants.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

And I have to say that it starts at Westminster. I look at the Conservative benches opposite. I see people who I’ve disagreed with many, many, many times, but disagreeing with somebody is not the same as disliking somebody. And I look at those benches and I ask myself the question: it starts in Westminster—who’s next? Who’s next? And I say that with no pleasure at all, without trying to make an party-political points, but I have seen the liberal viewpoint that David Melding has espoused so eloquently in this Chamber this afternoon being destroyed at Westminster, and it won’t stop there, given the people who are around the Prime Minister.

And I’ve always been astounded by the sheer level of ignorance in British politics about Ireland. I’ve said for years that Ireland was a problem that couldn’t be solved. Let me say it: ‘I told you so’. There we are, I’ve said it now. And it’s still not resolvable. There is no technical solution; it’s nonsense. I was part of these discussions and it doesn't exist—it is impossible to have an island where there are two different customs arrangements on either side of a border without physical checks. Otherwise, you just have smuggling. That is the reality of it, and the UK Government has not come up with an alternative to the backstop. That’s the reality of it. They have made a united Ireland more possible than at any time in my lifetime, because people are beginning to move away, very slowly, from the sectarian viewpoints and are starting to look now at what’s best for Northern Ireland. And the problem’s been that the UK Government has listened to the DUP as though the DUP represented all the people of Northern Ireland. It doesn’t—it’s one strand of opinion, and the people of Northern Ireland will not listen, and they are the people who, bear in mind, voted ‘remain’.

I’m aware of time, Llywydd, so I’ll say this: I am not afraid of an election. There has to be an election, because there’s a Government now with no majority. Of course there has to be an election, but to me, that election has to take place when the threat of a ‘no deal’ has been stopped for now, until that election takes place. And that means that it has to take place after 31 October. Give people breathing space and time to think about what they want to do. My fear is that the election won’t solve anything and we’ll end up with a referendum anyway, but nevertheless, the people have to have the opportunity to have their say. That wasn’t something the Prime Minister wanted in July; that wasn’t something the Prime Minister wanted in August. Apparently, it’s something the Prime Minister wants now because he’s in such a desperate hole. Well, as far as I’m concerned, bring it on, but in the right circumstances. Give people the breathing space to think about what they want to do in the future, and ultimately, as my colleague, Lynne Neagle said, give the people of Wales and the people of Britain the final say.

Well, blessed are those who expect nothing for they shall not be disappointed, and I didn't expect to hear any new arguments today from the 'remain' fanatics who have given rise to the debate. We had an eloquent threnody from David Melding, which I found very effecting and an interesting constitutional disquisition from Hefin David. But otherwise, we've gone around the same course that we have many, many times before, and so, what this Assembly has been doing today is perhaps what it does best, certainly in relation to Brexit, namely to posture impotently and polish its anti-democratic credentials. 

The plain fact of the matter is that 53 per cent of the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union without qualification in 2016, but 100 per cent of Labour Members, Plaid Cymru Members and, of course, the sole Liberal Democract, of course, are remainers. There is a disconnect between the people and this Assembly, as indeed there is at Westminster. The leader of Plaid Cymru, I thought, undermined his own argument by the ridiculous hyperbole in which he indulged, comparing Boris Johnson to Oswald Mosley, et cetera. He talked about Boris Johnson's contempt for democracy. I think the greater contempt is the contempt of his party and of the Labour Party for the decision of the British people, which was quite unambiguous, three years ago—or now more than three years ago. It is certainly quixotic to accuse the Prime Minister of being a dictator when he has said that he wants a general election to resolve this impasse. Dictators are not normally found calling for elections that they themselves might well lose.

Now, the period of time that has been argued about today, in which Parliament would be prorogued, it is said, means that we remove an opportunity for scrutiny, but we know that the truth of the matter is that all the scrutiny of all the arguments has been done on both sides many, many times. This is nothing to do with parliamentary scrutiny at all. It is in fact everything to do with the anti-democratic determination at all costs of the remainers to defy the will of the people in the referendum, and the great problem that we now have, the great constitutional problem that we now have, is that we've got a 'remain' Parliament versus a 'leave' people. This Assembly is even more of a 'remain' Parliament against a 'leave' people because Wales, just as England, voted by 53 per cent to leave, but in this place, the 'remain' majority is even greater than it is at Westminster. So, a general election is long overdue. We need a general election at Westminster to sweep out the sewers of the anti-democratic detritus that blocks the system, because that general election will be about one thing and one thing only, and that is Parliament against the people of this country. I think there are no prizes for guessing what the outcome of that will be.

When MPs voted for article 50 to be triggered, they all knew what they were doing, and that included voting to leave without a deal if no deal could be agreed. Now, I think a deal might have been agreed if we had a Government with a credible negotiating position, but that, at every step of the way, was undermined by the 'remain' fanatics who wanted 'no deal' to be taken off the table, which included the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the business Secretary and half the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister of that time, Theresa May, who was serially indecisive, not a believer in what she was doing. In those circumstances, no British Government could successfully have concluded a deal that would be acceptable to Brexiteers. The truth of the matter is that, until Boris Johnson formed a new Government, we had a Government of saboteurs. Philip Hammond and Greg Clark in particular did everything they possibly could to undermine the negotiating process and indeed to block Brexit, which the British people voted for. We had the most hopeless Prime Minister, as I've said before, since Lord North. She had a strategy to keep us in the EU in practice, and the atmosphere of crisis that we now have was created by her serial indecision, and we're now presented with a gun to the head. I agree with Mark Reckless. We didn't want to find ourselves in a situation where there is no deal. Of course it's in everybody's interest that there should be a deal—a free trade deal. That's what the two-year period that article 50 provides was meant to achieve. But because of the intransigence of the EU, as Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance Minister, pointed out in great detail in his great book, Adults in the Room, because he'd seen it all from the Greek perspective, the sequencing imposed by the EU was exactly what they did to Greece, a country upon which the EU has imposed unprecedented austerity, in which the GNP of Greece declined by one third. Now, that's real austerity instead of the false austerity that we often hear about in this Chamber.

The truth of the matter is that the 'remainiacs' think that the British people should keep on voting until they give them what they want. This is very traditional in the EU. We've had referenda in Denmark, in Holland, in Ireland twice and in France, and in the immortal words of Monsieur Juncker—I will give way if the Llywydd permits—'If it's a "yes"'—and this was in relation to the French referendum—'If it's a "yes", on we go, and if it's a "no", we continue.'

I give way to the former First Minister.

I'm grateful to the Member for giving way. What is the alternative to the backstop? That is the question that I ask. Lots of people have said they don't want it, but what is his alternative?

In the words of Simon Coveney, and they're on the screen here,

'We do recognise the reality that Ireland will have a responsibility to protect its own place in the...single market and that will involve some checks. But I can assure you that we will try to do that in a way that limits the risk, and we will try and do it...away from the border.'

He is the Irish foreign Minister, and that is the answer to the question.

I am shocked, actually, that Plaid Cymru still calls itself a nationalist party, in spite of what Rhun ap Iorwerth has just said. In fact, they are a regionalist surrender party. Their idea of nationalism is to transfer more and more power away not just from Cardiff, but even away from Westminster to Brussels and hand it to a technocratic elite who we can't even name let alone vote for and vote out if we don't like what they do. So, they're the very opposite of a nationalist party, actually. They're merely regional separatists and an apology for a national party.

And I'm shocked also that the Labour Party—the party that came into existence to protect the interests of working people—should now find itself reduced to the rump that it is, a globalist conspiracy, which we see in the EU, with all the usual suspects, from Mark Carney and the Goldman Sachs elite and all the international lobbyists, the multinational companies lined up to line their own pockets in Brussels by the use of multimillion pound lobbying companies, all combining to introduce protectionism and a raft of regulations designed to frustrate competition and keep out entrepreneurial, new companies. This is a massive conspiracy against the interests of working people, and now the Labour Party has utterly abandoned any claim to represent ordinary people in this country. A party that supports mass immigration to depress wages and expand its migrant quota base, and a party that ignores the majority to appease politically incorrect minority groups and third sector political propagandist parasites, increases fuel poverty to enrich multimillionaire windfarm developers, and with a Marxist leadership that would reduce this country to the status of Venezuela. That is the vision of the Labour Party for the future. Bring on a general election, I say, so that 'magic grandpa' can be exposed to the scrutiny of the British people and we can get the Brexit-supporting Government that the British people voted for in 2016, and that we deliver back once again the real sovereignty of Parliament, which will come by the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster and, indeed, to Cardiff. 

Well, well, Neil Hamilton—Neil Hamilton lecturing us about people lining their pockets. What next?

As you can imagine, I have spent the summer travelling around the agricultural shows and I've been listening to what people have to say, and I've heard a clear message from farmers and those living in rural areas, particularly many who had voted to leave three years ago: very many of those, having seen what that means, and particularly seeing what faces them through a 'no deal' Brexit, have changed their minds.

They regularly mention the importance of exports. Ninety per cent of the exported lamb goes to the European Union. Seventy two per cent of all Welsh food and drink exports go to the European Union, and securing tariff-free, unhindered access to those markets, the markets nearest to us and the most important and most valuable markets available to us—500 million customers—safeguarding access to that market must be a priority and nothing else.

The agricultural unions have told each and every one of you who have spoken to them in the shows over the summer months what the implications of moving to WTO terms would be: 46 per cent tariffs on lamb; between 46 and 84 per cent on beef exports. And farmers, of course, are eager to maintain high standards in terms of animal welfare and the environmental standards that they currently espouse and they would have to continue to do that if they wanted to safeguard access to the European market, but whilst Boris Johnson complains about people cutting the legs from under him in the Brexit discussions, Welsh farmers would have the legs cut from underneath them in seeing the UK Government coming to trade agreements with the United States, for example, which, in all likelihood, wouldn't meet the same standards, and that would be a double whammy for our farmers. And, of course, every pound going to Welsh farmers from the public purse produces £7. So, think about how much of a loss that will be to our rural communities. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has modelled a number of Brexit scenarios.

They've outlined that leaving without easy, tariff-free access to the single market will leave our less favoured area livestock farm incomes—and that means Wales, to a large extent, of course, particularly hard hit—falling to negative figures in the worst case scenario.

And I would ask the First Minister in his response to this debate to assure us that, if we do crash out in a 'no deal' Brexit, his Government will abandon the 'Sustainable Farming and our Land' proposals. I think it would be foolish for the Government not to wait to see what the outcome is of Brexit before ploughing ahead with any proposals. I was heartened by the Minister's suggestion that she’d be open minded to that at the Denbigh and Flint Show this year, and I would like to hear similar assurances from the First Minister this afternoon.

Now, on an environmental level as well, of course, we’ve already rehearsed in previous debates some of the environmental concerns, particularly around implications for environmental governance. If we leave the EU without a deal, there will be no environment watchdog to hold the Welsh Government and others to account, of course. And for those people who tell us, 'What has the EU ever done for us?', well, actually, it’s the EU that regulates the quality of the water that we drink, the air that we breathe and the food that we eat. So, it is quite significant, I would argue. But, of course, if we lose that accountability and that ability to take issues to a higher authority, then, of course, not only will nature suffer, but our own health, ultimately, will suffer as well.

I fear for the implications for Holyhead in my region, of course—the UK’s second biggest ferry port. I fear for companies such as Airbus—a pan-European venture, of course, which is the largest direct employer in north Wales, and you can double that when it comes, of course, to the extensive supply chain that it has as well.

Yes, the EU has faults, and it does need reforming, but I’ll tell you that the UK state is failed and is beyond reform. It’s run by public school boys with a sense of entitlement and superiority who don’t give two hoots for our rural communities in Wales, our struggling town centres. They’re more familiar with the French Riviera than the coastal resorts of north Wales. Yet they would see these communities rot and decay for their ideologically driven desire to create a little Britain—a little Britain free of workers' rights, a little Britain free of environmental safeguards, a little Britain free to sell the NHS to the highest bidder. Westminster isn’t working for Wales, and it’s time Wales takes its own destiny into its own hands.

Rhun ap Iorwerth and others have pointed out the importance of this debate today because of the impact of 'no deal' would be to hit—the poor would be hit hardest. It's not just the rural communities and our farmers who will be hit by this. What about the urban poor who would be without food if the food dries up as a result of 'no deal'? And, as Dai Lloyd has said, it would be be the most vulnerable who would die for the lack of flu injections and other medicines. So, I absolutely discount those who argue that this recall Parliament was window dressing and a waste of time—that is absolutely not the case. We're not here to debate the minutiae of Brexit; we are here to discuss the threat to democracy that is Boris Johnson's attempt to close down Parliament and to close down its scrutiny of his Government and the actions of Boris Johnson's Government to do things that would be harmful to the United Kingdom. That is why we are here today.

As Adam Price has said, dictatorships don't happen overnight. It's not so much the proroguing of Parliament for an extra two weeks that is the biggest threat—Charles I got away with that for over a decade—but, in case you missed it, Boris Johnson is now threatening to ignore whatever law the UK Parliament passes that prevents him crashing out of the EU without a deal. That aim is to put himself beyond the law. That is the act of a dictator, not a democrat. So, that is how serious it is.

And I think we should congratulate people like Guto Bebb and Antoinette Sandbach and all the other people who have put the interests of the country and their constituents before their own personal political ambitions. And it is distressing to see them cast aside by their party, a party, we are now told by Norman Baker—not known to be a progressive—dominated by 'swivel-eyed ideologues'—his words, not mine. I'm sure for many on the Conservative benches here in the National Assembly this is a deeply distressing and disturbing moment, but I think that Paul Davies's pitch that the Welsh Conservatives will deliver a negotiated settlement to leave the EU is unconvincing. I’m not convinced, as Andrew R.T. Davies is trying to say, that Boris Johnson wants a negotiated deal. In my view, sadly, Boris Johnson absolutely does not want a deal. He wants to leave the EU without a deal. Why? Because, for him, it is not about delivering what people thought they were voting for—remain or leave—no detail there on whether we want an autarchic economy, where we are completely self-sufficient, or whether we want to continue to be a trading nation. No, he wants to leave without a deal because he wants to do a deal with his friends across the Atlantic: Donald Trump and others. And they want to ensure that Britain is not encumbered—

Will you take an intervention?

I’m happy to do that.

I fail to see how you can say that when the Prime Minister has offered to put his argument before the country in a general election and, only two to three years ago, the European Union were trying to strike the same sort of trade deal with America that was putting the NHS up for grabs.

Which we absolutely opposed. So, I think the—[Interruption.] You haven't heard what I said earlier, which is that Boris Johnson is saying that he will not comply with the law in his enthusiasm for leaving the EU. So, they do not want—. Transitional deals are for the birds, as far as they're concerned. They want to flood our country—. They want to do a deal with Donald Trump and his business partners because—. And they want to flood our country with adulterated foods, which would put our farmers out of business and force on us the obesogenic diet most American citizens are content to eat. They want to make zero-hours contracts the norm, destroying the guaranteed maternity and paternity pay and the sick leave and holiday entitlements that we enjoy thanks to the EU, and they want to remove all regulatory restraints on businesses. We have seen today that Amazon has simply ignored the copyright rules in the pursuit of profit by dispatching embargoed copies of Margaret Atwood's The Testaments so that they can put small competitors in book shops out of business. And that is the way in which other monopoly companies across the world, who are anxious to make Britain a platform for their activities, will behave. And this is not competition, this is not choice: this is monopoly. That is why I personally would oppose Brexit, although I fully understand the coherent position taken by David Melding and, indeed, by Ken Clarke on this matter. That discussion is for another day. But, for me, what we have to do is protect, particularly, our most vulnerable constituents, and taking Britain peremptorily out of the EU without a deal is absolutely against their interests.

We know that the UK Government has no plan for any new deal with the EU, because Stephen Barclay himself has asked the EU-27 to come up with an alternative to the backstop, because they don’t have any other ideas. And, indeed, the UK Government is now spending the money that had originally been set aside to cope with 'no deal' on pre-election sweeteners, because that is the way they feel that they will be able to impose 'no deal'. So, I think we face a very dangerous situation and I think it is absolutely right that we have this debate today.

As with my colleague, Mark Reckless, I cannot take part in this debate without asking the fundamental question as to why we have been recalled in this way, given that whatever is decided in this Assembly today will have absolutely no effect on what happens in Westminster. And, given the sparsity of people in the gallery here today, it would seem that the people of Wales see this debate as being pointless as well.

It is my belief—

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I do find it curious that the Brexit Party now is arguing that the one thing this Assembly shouldn't do is debate Brexit.

It is my belief, David, that this is just another opportunity for the remainers to reiterate their opposition to the referendum mandate by the people of the UK—and that includes Wales—to leave the European Union, and nothing I've heard in this Chamber today has changed my opinion on that. It is said that politics in this country has never before been so divisive. Well, one has to ask who has caused this division, and the answer is, of course, the refusal of the remainers to accept the result of what could possibly be called the most informed democratic debate ever undertaken in this country, which of course included a 10-page pamphlet delivered to every household that clearly outlined the case for and against us leaving the European Union. As this pamphlet came from a largely pro-European Government, some of us would argue that it was largely a pro-remain argument in the content that was placed before the British people. The 'remain' camp, which includes Labour, Plaid and the Lib Dems, contend that leaving without a deal wasn't on the ballot paper. Perhaps most of you have chosen to ignore the contents of your own manifestos. We now have the farcical situation where Labour are backing the 'remain' campaign, yet their latest manifesto is to deliver—[Interruption.] Yes, of course.

The 2017 election, which is referred to, was a year after the referendum. In that election, 54 per cent of the voters across the UK voted for political parties who expressly, explicitly ruled out a 'no deal' Brexit in their manifestos. So, the clear mandate from the people is against a 'no deal' Brexit.

One wonders what he means by a 'no deal' Brexit, but we'll carry on—[Interruption.] Their manifestos, about nationalisation—. The Labour Party are backing the 'remain' campaign, yet their latest manifesto is to deliver on economic promises about nationalisation and state subsidies that simply cannot be implemented under EU legislation, whether they're affordable or not. Fifty per cent of Corbyn's economic policies are prohibited if we remain in the EU, and today you see, in the amendments to this debate, the sheer opportunism of Plaid, who, in their guise as the party of Wales, wish to push their agenda of separation from England. So, on the one hand they argue we should be politically ruled by Brussels because it gives us greater export opportunities to the huge market afforded by the EU, whilst wanting to cut us off politically from England, which is by far our biggest export market. They argue that leaving the EU will cost Wales thousand of jobs whilst ignoring the economic reality that cutting ourselves off from the UK would mean the loss of thousands of jobs that are in such UK institutions as the DVLA, the statistics office and the patents office, and many more related to our political affiliation with England and the rest of the UK. And, of course, the private sector companies may well decide to relocate to England. These are precisely the arguments Plaid use as the reason for us remaining in the EU—that companies would leave the UK for the EU.

To show just how much political gerrymandering has come in the wake of the referendum result, yesterday in Parliament Labour abstained on the vote for holding a general election despite their leader continually calling over the past year to have such an election, and he even did that on the Monday before that debate. Whatever happens in this Chamber today, I am convinced that the people of Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom are heartily sick of the Machiavellian antics of the political classes, both here in Wales and in the UK as a whole. I am equally convinced that this Chamber is out of touch with the feelings of the working class people of Wales and has lost the confidence of those very people they are supposed to represent. The First Minister states that we want to send a clear statement to Westminster with the message that we should remain in the EU. This is a message that totally ignores the will of the people of Wales as expressed on 23 June 2016.

This afternoon I want to focus my contribution on the actual motion, which has two components: one, the undemocratic processes that have been adopted by the UK Government and Prime Minister, and the second one, the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit upon the people we represent here. And when I hear contributions—and I've just heard one—where people simply ask the question, 'Why have we been recalled?', I can tell you why: because the issues in that motion affect the people we represent and our work, and the actual ability not to understand that questions your role in this institution, and I think that's disgraceful.

Llywydd, I'll highlight the fact that there are real impacts upon people in this debate. Dai Lloyd's contribution highlighted some of the points. He talked about the issues our constituents will be facing if a 'no deal' happens. Let me talk first of all about the impact upon our work of proroguing Parliament, work already undertaken in this institution by committees of the institution, whether it be my committee, the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, or that of my colleague Mick Antoniw, who would have been here but he's stuck in Kiev because he can't get back in time. But those committees have worked carefully upon preparing for Brexit and the legislative agenda that is associated with it. And we seem to forget some of the things we do and the work we have and responsibilities we have in addressing those matters.

Some of that legislation has already received Royal Assent. They've had that permission. There are others still going through Parliament that proroguing Parliament would kill off: the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill. There's an immigration Bill—. We might say it's not in our remit, but it affects the work we cover because of the areas of devolution we have responsibility for. There's the Trade Bill—people talk about trade. We have an LCM in the Trade Bill. That's going to be killed off. And there are many other Bills going through—the environmental protection Bill. These will be killed and they are areas in which we have a very important role to play. And they'll have to start up all over again, and, by the way, before 31 October, because if we leave without a deal, as has been tried on—. This cynical attempt is nothing about actually having a Queen's Speech. The real cynical attempt is about getting a 'no deal' through on the thirty-first. Let's be honest about that and let's be honest with the people about that. And, if that happens, where legislatively will we be on 31 October or 1 November if we don't get these Bills through? And they're not going to get through in that time. And that would leave the work of our committees, of this institution, struggling. And we have to remember that because our job is to protect the interests of Wales and the constituents we represent, and without that legislative ability, we can't do that. So, proroguing Parliament actually does damage our ability to do our job. The actions of the Brexiteer-led Cabinet clearly demonstrate their belief that the survival of the union and the protection of citizens, including the ones we represent, are secondary to their Brexit ambition. Collateral damage that they accept and I will not.

Now, colleagues have spoken about constitutional reform, and for years both CLAC and EAAL have raised the need to get stronger, more formalised inter-governmental arrangements, something which really has been starting a debate across the UK Parliaments. In that parliamentary forum—which, by the way, I should have been at today but it was, I think, rearranged—this progress for the long-term interests of Wales and the UK is crucial, and the use of the royal prerogative has been so undermined we must now ensure that that reform does take place and we are there to ensure that our voice is heard in it.

By the way, I heard the comments about what is important, and I'd say, 'Please, for those who haven't read the reports of the committees, read them.' If you have read them, clearly you don't understand them. It's your job to ensure that what is in those reports is understood because it then might advise you as to some of the comments you've made today.

Llywydd, the other part of the debate is clearly the impact upon 'no deal'. Last time I remember being recalled to this Chamber was at the end of the last Assembly and the Tata steel issues. We were recalled just before the Assembly elections, just before we were actually dissolved to discuss the implications of Tata steel, and here we are again actually talking about 'no deal', being recalled, and, actually, the implications for Tata steel are just as crucial today as they were then, because I've met with people, clearly linked to that, and the implications for the steel industry are huge. We could be leaving with 'no deal' and WTO rules. Everybody seems to think WTO rules are fine and fantastic: no, they're not. We will end up in a disastrous situation because a third of the steel goes into Europe from Port Talbot. There'll be other elements going to the car industry. We all know the implications for the car industry. And then, when we go out without a deal, we go to WTO rules, which means that we have to also be impacted upon by the EU rules that have been put into place against USA, section 232, to defend EU steel, and we'll be facing those challenges, and we'll still be facing the US 232 sections and other issues with Turkish steel as a consequence of WTO. People don’t understand in this Chamber the implications for our constituents and the livelihoods of their families as a consequence of going out on WTO. They need to get real and they need to start understanding, not about an ideology, but about the impact on people’s lives—the people I represent and the people we should all represent.

Will you take a representation?

I’m more than happy to take a representation.

How many thousands of steel jobs have we lost in Wales whilst we’re in the European Union and because of the regulations coming out Europe? And do you not agree that this manifesto that your leader, Corbyn, is suggesting is for the benefit of the people of Wales and for the benefit of the people of the UK, and yet he cannot implement this because he’s prevented from doing so by us remaining in the European Union? What about those thousands of jobs?

Well, I’ve just heard a total lack of understanding of the whole business of the steel industry. If you want to talk about the loss of jobs, talk about Margaret Thatcher who damaged and devastated the steel industry and the coal industry. It’s not about the EU—it was a UK Tory, right-wing Government that did that damage, and it’s doing the same now.

So, I’m going to ask colleagues—. Actually, because I see the time left, I’m going to ask colleagues, 'Let’s support this motion.' Let’s send a single message out today that the attempt to damage democracy is unacceptable because it affects our jobs and our work and our constituents, and that a ‘no deal’ exit is damaging to our people—the people we live with, the people who live next door to us, the people we represent.

Soundbites, spin, lies, chaotic debates, demos, slogans on buses, broken promises, half-sitting MPs, a distracting cwtchy dog. You name it, it’s probably all happened during this Brexit play. It would certainly give the The Thick of It a run for its money, anyway. But superficial spin and game playing is one thing in the yah-boo world of the asbestos-ridden Westminster Parliament, and the harsh realities of the economic self-harm being instigated by the hard-line 'no-dealers' is another matter entirely and one which we ignore at our peril.

I was a little sceptical about what this debate here today could achieve when I first heard that we were being recalled. Just as a 16-year-old Greta Thunberg might have thought she would have no power to make climate change a worldwide priority when she started her school strike campaign, we too may think that we don't have the power to influence the UK Government in the toxic climate that is politics at the moment. But we underestimate ourselves if we start to think that way, and we do ourselves and our roles as elected politicians of Wales a disservice also. After all, we introduced the smoking ban before we could implement it legally as a moral stand, to show what we were prepared to do had we had those powers at our fingertips. We have made statements of solidarity, as has been mentioned earlier, with other nations in times of strife and upheaval, and sent medical staff to help the wounded in Palestine. If we only imagine that we can be strong enough to make changes, just like Greta did, and is still doing, then we can do so too. We might not yet be a Parliament on a nameplate outside the Senedd steps, but we can be a Parliament in action, in how we convey our messages to the world, and it is in this spirit that I wrote what I wanted to say today.

The day after the Brexit referendum result, aside from being in shock at the result, as most were on both sides, I imagine, I woke to news about how Brexit would affect Ireland and the north of Ireland—its people, its borders, its economy and its peace. I hardly saw any of this debated during the Brexit referendum itself. What I read I searched for avidly, as a daughter of a woman from the Falls Road who had lived through the Troubles. I wondered why this wasn’t higher up the political agenda. After all, if Brexit was going to hit anywhere hard, it was going to be there. The day after, it seemed, everyone recognised how difficult finding a solution would be there, and a misstep or a broken deal could lead to broken lives and broken communities. Whether we know the ins and outs of the Good Friday agreement—as I don't think many in the UK Government do—is one thing, but what we should all know in this Chamber here today is how catastrophic a 'no deal' Brexit would be for Ireland, and how it will impact not only them, but all of us here in this Chamber.

Politicians in the US have already indicated that they would not support a UK-US trade deal should the terms of the Good Friday agreement be undermined—a deal that is surely integral to Boris and his team if they are serious about the retention of the so-called ‘special relationship’ with the US. They must know how deep the links are between communities of people in Ireland and the US, the integral role Senator George Mitchell and others played in the negotiations at the height of the Troubles. They will not sit back and watch a 'no deal', hard border take shape.

Do we also believe the wider world community will not react if the UK is seen as being so disregarding and blasé about this international agreement? I fear the 'leave with no deal, no agreement, come hell or high water' minority are dangerously close to actions that will not only cause significant damage to our economy, but also the reputation of a UK they claim to want to protect. Do they really want to press the button on a 'no deal' Brexit and unleash demons in this country, particularly in the north of Ireland, that we will not be certain that we can contain easily?

In this country, we talk about war and violence with rose-tinted spectacles. We commemorate those who fought in wars that most of us don’t even remember. But, in the north of Ireland, violence is not a footnote of the past. Peace lines still exist. Attacks are still happening, as with Lyra McKee, the young journalist who was shot in Belfast recently. It is blind and totally irresponsible for 'no deal' Brexiteers to be so cavalier, when peace is so vulnerable on our doorsteps.

Here is a short paragraph that my mother, who moved to Wales to get away from the violence and trouble on the streets of Belfast, gave me when I said I would be speaking here today:

'As a child and teenager, growing up in Belfast was difficult. Every single day we saw shootings/ bombings/ hijacking/ searches. Much of this was unreported on the mainland. No family was exempt and we all suffered our own tragedies.

'When Bombay Street in the lower Falls was set on fire by loyalists, the people became refugees in their own city.

'I remember helping them in the leisure centres where they were re-located, until accommodation was found. For weeks there were barricades at both ends of the street where I lived, and residents slept on the floor, afraid of more attacks.

'This was a reality for the people in Northern Ireland. Everyone lived on their nerves. Parents feared for their children, and recruitment levels to paramilitary groups soared.

'Most Catholics had never met a protestant and vice versa. Ignorance fuelled discord.

'With the Good Friday agreement, there was a new atmosphere of hope, as the right of Catholic people in the north to be classed as equals with the loyalist community was recognised as a legitimate aim.

'My generation, now in their 60s and 70s, do not wish to see a return to the days of the troubles. We feel outraged at talk of a return to a border.

'There is a growing band of disconsolate youths, who have never experienced the troubles, and are ready to take up the struggle. They may be few in number now, but with a border hardening hearts and minds, this number may well grow.

'Whatever happens, peace in Northern Ireland should not be a bargaining chip in Boris Johnson's grand plan.

'Who will speak up for the people of the north of Ireland?

'Who will peacefully champion their cause?

'Will we stand by and watch Ireland descend into a sectarian crisis again?

'We need to defend, and stand up for our rights as Europeans and Irish citizens.’

We should heed her words, and others like her. We do not live in a vacuum. Brexit, of course, will affect Wales directly—and my colleagues have said this eloquently here today—and the lives we lead here in Wales. But let us not underestimate how a 'no deal' Brexit may change people’s lives forever close to home—closer to home than we can ever imagine.

So, let us not stand by and let this happen, but stand up, speak out strong, and tell the world that this should not go ahead.

Proroguing of Parliament, or, to put it in a way that most of us would understand, the decision to shut down our Westminster Parliament, at such a critical point in our history is both deliberate and cynical, and it's absolutely right that our Welsh Parliament comes together today to express a view on that, for all the reasons that others have already pointed out.

Now, it might, strictly speaking, be legal to do that—we'll await the outcome of the current legal challenges—but let's be under no illusion that this has been done for one political reason alone, and that is an attempt to prevent the Westminster Parliament from scrutinising the actions of the UK Government in relation to the biggest issue of our time: our relationship with the European Union. 

I can't think of anything that is further from the Brexit mantra of taking back control than to try to silence the very body that they themselves campaigned to give absolute control to. There are of course precedents in history for this type of action by government, but none of them are good, none of them have ended well, and none of them provide us with any kind of assurance about the direction of travel. But, in this debate, I want to focus and confine my comments to two issues that I feel arise from the Prime Minister’s decision. The first issue is that of division in our society, which David Rowlands has already mentioned, and the second is the character of leadership.   

On the first issue of division, I struggle to recall an issue that has so divided opinion in our nation as this continuing debate about our relationship, future relationship, with the European Union. Indeed, I struggle to recall when the language of division has been so weaponised as to actually make me fearful for the state of our civil society. When to have an opposing view in a democracy is portrayed as betrayal or treachery, and, most recently, as surrender, then we are in very worrying times. This language and the imagery it projects, and tragic acts like the murder of Jo Cox, have deeply scarred this country, and, at a time of national crisis, my expectation—and our past experience often tells us—is that it is the purpose, responsibility and obligation of leaders to reduce tensions, to seek to reduce division, and to seek to foster more harmonious relations. But not at the moment, it seems. At this moment there are forces at work, some very sinister forces, that are seeking to both foster and to drive up division, culminating now in our Prime Minister suspending a sovereign Parliament to prevent MPs that we elected to determine issues that they were put there to do. This has had, and I fear will continue to have, a range of consequences.   

One clear political consequence is that the constitution of the United Kingdom is now in a state of unknown flux, and the forces of conservatism that over centuries have used an evolving constitution to maintain stability are now themselves hacking away at its very foundations. And in that I share David Melding’s concerns that this will have consequences that go far beyond what we've seen in the current debate about our relationship with the EU. To a degree, some of that is articulated in the amendments to the motion that Plaid Cymru have tabled today, and also in the speedy return of the debate about Scottish independence. It is now not beyond the realms of possibility that we will see the break-up of the United Kingdom on the watch of the Conservative and Unionist Party—a party that has become more populist by the day, and is, as others have said, now little more than a party of English nationalism.

The second issue I want to comment on is the character and the nature of leadership. It's clear that sitting at the heart of this week’s debate is a fundamental distrust of the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. That distrust is not confined to one party; it is shared across parties, including his own, as we have seen expressed by those who now find themselves purged out of the Tory benches in Westminster. It is indeed remarkable that people lack trust in the new UK Prime Minister to this extent, and I can’t ever remember this before. There have been disagreements, but never the lack, the total lack, of trust that we see today. And, as we’ve heard only this morning, the ever-growing list of people who seem no longer to trust the Prime Minister includes his own brother. Clearly, those closest to him know him best.

Yet I also know that, while following the debates this week and in watching the actions of those who the Prime Minister has gathered around him, it is clear and apparent why there is such a lack of trust. The man is a consummate liar. He is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe—much like his friend from the USA—and he is unfit to hold the highest office in this country. He says one thing, he does another, and he cannot be trusted to do what he says he will do. He cannot be trusted with the future of our country.

So, I support the motion today. Don’t let us and our right-minded colleagues in Westminster, across all parties, be the good men and women that did nothing as a Prime Minister tried to ride roughshod over our democracy. Not sitting for five weeks at the most crucial time in our history will seriously weaken our democracy, so I hope that everything possible will be done in Westminster to rescind the suspension of Parliament and to use all other time available, including, if necessary, cancelling the autumn recess to allow maximum time to resolve this situation and ensure that we do not have a damaging 'no deal' Brexit.

But, on this particular issue of suspension of Parliament, this should not be a moment to divide leavers and remainers. It's a moment to find common cause to defend our democracy, because if we don’t—and on this point I do agree with Adam Price’s comments right at the beginning of this debate about incremental moves towards dictatorship—we allow the current leadership of the Conservative Party once again to put party before country, and then, as Clem Attlee once said, we are halfway to that dictatorship.

We've been in national crisis, as many have described today, for some three years now following the referendum result and the ongoing Brexit fiasco or tragedy, and matters are now coming to a head, it would seem, with a new leadership at UK Government level much more inclined towards a 'no deal' outcome, with all the damage that that would do. I think it's absolutely right that we come together today, Llywydd, to discuss these matters as a representative body, as a voice for the people of Wales, because it is so obviously a great national crisis in the UK, including, of course, Wales. 

We know that a 'no deal' would be very, very damaging to our economy. We've heard Dai Rees talk about the possible effects on the steel industry. The unsettling effect for business has been going on for three years now. It's so damaging to investment and jobs, and I know, Llywydd, that the steelworkers in the Orb works, the Cogent works in my constituency of Newport East, feel these matters very keenly and very obviously. And they expect us, Llywydd, to meet and to discuss and to consider what can be done to help them and the Brexit situation. The 'no deal' possibilities are very germane to their prospects—general prospects and particular prospects in the near future and beyond—and they expect us to address all the issues that we're used to addressing in these situations: help from Welsh Government around retraining, the avoidance of compulsory redundancies, opportunities elsewhere in Tata Steel, Llanwern, Port Talbot, for example, as well as more general job opportunities, retraining, all the advice and assistance that's usual, but also, of course, as the Community trade union and Unite are making very clear, the possibilities of that plant continuing with the necessary investment that would allow those electrical steels to be used for electric cars, for example, and other uses in the future. Many are convinced of a very strong future for that plant with the right level of investment and commitment.

What they also expect, of course, Llywydd, is that the UK Parliament continues to meet and to discuss because, obviously, they have very real responsibilities for the steel industry, to set a strategy and policy for the steel industry, to address the particular issues at that Orb steelworks. So, the idea of suspending the UK Parliament for more than four weeks at such a time is obviously an absolute anathema to those working in my constituency in that plant. That plant—Llywydd, there has been a steelworks there since the end of the nineteenth century, and, in fact, the transporter bridge in Newport was built to transport workers to the plant that existed at that time. It has a fantastic history. Many believe it could still have a very strong future. Those are matters that the UK Parliament needs to continue to meet to discuss and, indeed, to decide what action is appropriate. Not to do so would be a denial of the responsibility that they so obviously have. And I know that the workers and the trade unions representing those workers at Orb expect us to address the issues of the time and expect the UK Parliament to do likewise, and, Llywydd, I hope everybody here today can understand that and understand the significance of us meeting here today in the light of those events.

The First Minister to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's contributed to this debate. More than 25 Members have spoken in the Assembly today, and I apologise that I won't able to respond directly to everyone who's contributed.

So, apologies to those who’s contributions I’m unable to respond to in the time that I’ve got available. Let me begin by what was said by the leader of Plaid Cymru early in the debate. I listened very carefully to what Adam Price had to say and I agreed with him on very much of what he contributed—the things that he said about democracy, about the rule of law, about the way in which Delyth Jewell later referred to the shameless way in which the Prime Minister has disregarded standards of probity of democracy. On all of those things I agreed with what he said. And when he talked about the amendments that are in the name of Plaid Cymru on the order paper this afternoon, it’s absolutely right to use the debate we’ve had to air these matters, and a series of Labour Members in their reply—in Hefin David’s contribution on constitutional matters and the things that the previous First Minister had to say—. I think you’ll have seen that Members in other parts of the Chamber have engaged seriously with those matters. I’m sure that we will return to a number of them in the future.

But as I said in opening the debate, Llywydd, today every barnacle that is added to the motion weighs it down, every new clause that is added to it dilutes what Adam Price referred to as the main focus of our deliberations and, more importantly I think, runs the risk of diluting the impact that our discussions can and need to have beyond this Assembly.

I’m not sure, Llywydd, quite how carefully I listened to what Mark Reckless had to say, but let me say this: that I listened more carefully to him than he had bothered to listen to me, because had he taken the trouble to listen, he would have known that I had already answered a whole series of questions that he raised. I read in the newspapers, Llywydd, that Mr Reckless had said that the National Assembly ought to stick to its knitting, and there he is indeed, the Madame Defarge of our political institution, sitting there at the foot of the guillotine knitting away while the Welsh economy is lined up at the guillotine. I didn’t follow some of what the Member had to say, but the bits that I was able to follow seemed to me to be part of that fantasy of the far-right that we are offered here now on the floor of the Assembly.

His former comrade-in-arms, Neil Hamilton, began with something rare on the floor of the Assembly—he warned us that we weren’t to expect much and that we wouldn’t be disappointed. And at least in that he didn’t let us down—10 minutes, as it seemed to me, of unmitigated nonsense. I don’t want to be unkind to the Member, but he described the Government that I’ve had to meet time after time over the last two years as a Government of saboteurs—saboteurs that included David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom, Chris Grayling. These are the people that we have had to meet week in and week out, and the idea that these people had as their political mission to sabotage Brexit simply defies any form of credibility.

But, Llywydd, let me make this more serious point, that when we hear the language on the floor of this Assembly that describes people with whom we don't agree as 'saboteurs', or when someone uses the language of ‘collaborators’ with all its historical echoes, when we are told that the general election will be one that pits Parliament against the people, then the whiff of fascism is on the floor of the National Assembly of Wales. And I don't say that lightly, because I think that the language that is used is used knowingly. It's dog-whistle language; it's designed to evoke a reaction of the sort where the people who use it know full well what they are doing, and, when they are doing it, it is right that we, in return, use the language that they deserve.

Could I ask the First Minister to reflect on whether it was really appropriate for him to call the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom a liar on the floor of this house?

Llywydd, I think very carefully about the language that I use. What I did was to give a very specific example of what has happened under this Prime Minister when he put up his spokesperson to say something on his behalf that he knows, and we now know, simply to be untrue, and what I said was that if you put someone up to say something that you know is not the truth, then that is a lie, and I don't think we should shy away from saying that. 

Now, I listened carefully to what Paul Davies had to say, and I've often felt some sympathy for the leader of the opposition on the floor of this Assembly, because he is a decent man. And everything that he said this afternoon and everything Andrew R.T. Davies said this afternoon about the Conservative Party needing to be a broad church, I know that when they say that to us, they mean it and that is the view of the political party that they have belonged to. And, as I said, I felt some sympathy with the leader of the opposition—he applied for a job that involves defending the indefensible and he plugs away at it every week on the floor of the Assembly.

But I have less sympathy with him on this issue, because he supported Boris Johnson in the leadership election inside the Conservative Party while knowing that that person's prospectus on Brexit was the most damaging that could have possibly been put forward as far as Wales is concerned, and we see that. We see it and we've heard, as Carwyn Jones and Rhianon Passmore have pointed out to us, the irony—the utter irony—that the Prime Minister ran his Brexit campaign in 2016 on a take-back-control message only to find out that he has handed over control to an unelected person who plots and plans every move, we are told, that the Prime Minister now makes.

Now, Paul Davies and David Melding said that this was a moment for us to try to move forward together, and that we should use the influence that we have as a Government to work with the new administration in Westminster. And I want to say on the floor of the Assembly, Llywydd, that this Government has never once lost an opportunity to be in the same room as the Conservative Government that we have had since 2017. Despite the fact that those are often profoundly uncomfortable occasions where we find ourselves with people with whom we deeply disagree, we have never, ever lost an opportunity to be there, to try to be influential, to speak up for Wales. But since the election of Mr Johnson, we are shut out of those discussions. Under his predecessor, with whom I profoundly disagreed, we were invited to meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations. We attended a sub-committee of the Cabinet itself. Since the Boris Johnson premiership began, those opportunities have evaporated. We were due to attend a meeting on Friday of this week, but that invitation has been withdrawn. You can't influence a Government that has no wish to be in discussion with us. 

I met Antoinette Sandbach when I was last in the House of Commons. She said to me that there was no way of resolving Brexit without a willingness on the part of her party to work with the Labour Party to find common ground on which we could agree, and we have seen what has happened now to people of her view and her persuasion. I listened very carefully yesterday, Llywydd, to a senior Conservative—well, former, now, Conservative Member of the House of Commons—saying that a 'no deal' Brexit would do harm to our economy, to our security, to our integrity and to our place in the world, and all of those themes have been rehearsed on the floor of the Assembly this afternoon. Joyce Watson and Jenny Rathbone spoke up for those vulnerable people in our communities whose own economic futures will be damaged by a 'no deal' Brexit. We heard from John Griffiths about the damage that has been done to Tata, and will be done even more so if we leave the European Union without a deal. [Interruption.] Of course.

I am grateful, and I think we all do stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers at the Orb steelworks in Newport, but it's my understanding that Tata haven't cited Brexit as the issue of the closure. In fact, they've been actively trying to market the plant for some time. It is the massive capacity increase that China have put into the market. Every sinew must be pulled to try and save that plant. But are you seriously saying Brexit has closed that plant in Newport? Because if you are, you're in contradiction to what the plant has said.

Andrew, look, I have to say to you that the attempts that are made by people who advocated Brexit always to say, when major economic closures happen in Wales, that Brexit had nothing to do with it are not credible. It doesn't work in the world in which ordinary people live their lives. I met the most senior people from Tata in Port Talbot when the new blast furnace was reopened. I was there to talk about the success that the firm had had with the help of the Welsh Government in relining the blast furnace. All they wanted to talk to me about was Brexit. All they wanted to do was to tell me about their fears for the future of that company in a time when we don't have access to the single market, when we don't have the things that allow them to trade successfully today. It just doesn't wash to say that these things don't matter when those decisions are made. Of course they do.

I heard what Rhun ap Iorwerth and Llyr Gruffydd said about the impact on rural Wales, and that's what I heard when I visited Anglesey and Pembrokeshire—people were fearful and concerned about their future. Many people told me that they had changed their mind, as Llyr stated. I had an opportunity over the summer to meet with senior staff at Iceland, and to hear what they said about people living in poverty now and the impact on them, and what's happened already to the pound and how that has shifted over the summer months

The second thing that I heard the senior Conservative Party member say was about security. Both Carwyn Jones and Bethan Sayed have talked about the Irish border and the impact on security there. We know we won't be in the European arrest warrant arrangement after Brexit.

And security is about more than that, too, as Dr Dai Lloyd mentioned. We need security for those people who need treatments where the drugs won't be available. People will be going without their medicine. That's what we're talking about here when we discuss security and safety for the future.

Integrity: we've heard a lot about integrity here this afternoon, about the fact that we have a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted, whose word cannot be relied upon. But, as Dai Rees said, it's not just integrity at the individual level; it's integrity at the institutional level as well. The hours that have been spent in this institution, in committee, on the floor of the Assembly, passing legislation on the grounds that we had a Government who would then be there to put that legislation into practice, and who are now prepared to tear that up and to leave all that behind. 

The place of the United Kingdom in the world: Andrew R.T. Davies said in his contribution, 'Say what you like about Boris Johnson, he's certainly brought things to a head'. And I've been thinking about the allusions we've had across the Chamber to classical matters this afternoon, and that remark reminded me of the great Greek myth of Icarus. Do you remember Icarus, that man who flew too close to the sun, over confident, knowing that he knew better than anybody else? He flew too close to the sun and he plunged to his death in the sea below. Well, say what you like, he certainly brought things to a head. And Britain's place in the world is damaged because of people who have lost confidence in us as a nation, about our ability to speak in a language and in a tone and with a sense of proportion that they have come to believe the United Kingdom stood for once in the world and which has been thrown away by the Prime Minister, both when he was Foreign Secretary and in the few short weeks that he's been Prime Minister too.

Llywydd, there's no doubt about it: the wheels are off the bus. The driver turned out to have no licence, no mandate, no morality, no majority. What we have done this afternoon, as Dawn Bowden said at the very end of the debate, is to highlight those matters that are at the heart of the current political debate: the need to defend parliamentary democracy and the right of people to have representatives on their behalf speaking up in the debates that will have such a profound impact on their lives. Our determination that the harm that is avoidable—it's not harm that you can't avoid—. The harm that is avoidable that a 'no deal' Brexit will do should be avoided. We should speak up here this afternoon. We should leave no-one in any doubt about the views of this National Assembly, and we will be speaking when we do that on behalf of the people of Wales. 

The proposal is to adopt amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting, therefore, on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.