I'm pleased to hear that the Government will be publishing its own estimate on the economic impact of 'no deal', because the Minister just now adopted David Rees's reference to the Bank of England estimate—£1,000 coming from a 5 per cent estimate. Yet his colleague just now, Rebecca Evans, referred to a 10 per cent estimate from the Treasury, which led to this £2,000 estimate. Yet even the lower of those estimates, does the Minister recognise, is based on an assumption by the Bank of England that a 'no deal' exit will lead to the Bank of England raising its interest rates from 0.75 per cent to 4.5 per cent, and he's aware that almost any private sector economist who has commented on that thinks that it's simply an incredible thing to say?

I'm still no clearer, really, as to where the policy of the Minister is in terms of the overall Brexit position. Does he want to see a UK Government under his party go to Brussels to seek to negotiate a new deal so that they can then come back to this country and campaign against it in a referendum? And does he agree with the two letters used by his colleague the health Secretary to describe that policy—BS?

He says in his statement that the UK Government is focused on blaming the EU, but many people listening to our debates will see the Welsh Government as being focused on blaming the UK Government. Whenever there's a dispute, whenever the European Union refuses to move its position and remains intransigent, this Welsh Government can be counted on to take the side of those European Union institutions against the UK Government. The previous Member talked about a threat to the union. Is not a threat to the union that this Welsh Government refuses to act for the people of Wales who want to stay in the UK but leave the European Union? Your predecessor, Counsel General, said

'we will not work against the referendum result.'

When did that policy change?

You talk about paying our debts. Are you not aware that our treaty with the European Union provides for an exit mechanism? We give two years' notice. For those two years we're on the hook to continue paying everything we would as a member. After that there is no continuing, international legal obligation. We are not contracted to pay. There is not a debt. Even the House of Lords' European Union Select Committee—hardly a hotbed of leavers—said that if we leave at the end of an article 50 process, there is no continuing financial obligation. The only area where that might be different is for the European Investment Bank, because it’s separately constituted with its own capital. And if we were to go to the International Court of Justice, why is it that we're only getting back £3.5 billion of the capital we initially put in, not our share of £7.5 billion extra of the accumulated reserves? No doubt he'll back the European Union on that point too.

Can I just ask about the legal situation? Because he describes the Court of Session, saying,

'which is in fact a superior court'.

In what sense is it a superior court? It is in a different jurisdiction. It also hears cases of first instance in judicial review in the same way that the High Court in London, or indeed sitting in Cardiff, does. It is in a different jurisdiction. Why is it a superior court any more than an eighth district of federal appeals in California might be a superior court? It’s not; it’s in a different jurisdiction. Is it not the case that its rulings are at most persuasive? They are not binding in our jurisdiction of England and Wales. And, Counsel General, you complain that the UK cannot rely on the Prime Minister to follow the law of the UK. Can't the people of Wales rely on their First Minister and Counsel General to follow the law of England and Wales?