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.