3. Will the First Minister make a statement on the Welsh Government's current position on Brexit? OAQ54364

I thank the Member for that question. The Brexit crisis should be resolved by returning the decision to the people in a second referendum. The Welsh Government will campaign hard to secure our future inside the European Union.

Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. In today's climate, waiting until question 3 to talk about this most probably is a bit optimistic. But, surely, the one thing you didn't respond to in the leader of the opposition's remarks to you in the urgent question was the point that the people can have their say, the Prime Minister wants them to have their say, via a general election. Will you be putting the Welsh Government's political will behind the calls for a general election, so that a deadlock Parliament can be broken up and a new Parliament convened to resolve these issues?

I always want to have a general election when there is a Conservative Party in power, because that offers some hope to people that things could be different and things could be better. 

Well let's have the election.

But, if you think that everybody else is simply going to dance to the tune of a Prime Minister who was found today to have acted unlawfully and undemocratically, and think that he will manoeuvre things so that it happens at a moment of his choosing and his convenience, then you've got it badly wrong. We don't think the Prime Minister is to be trusted on this matter. I hope that an election comes, and I hope it comes very quickly, but it will be at a time of Parliament's choosing, not the time that this Prime Minister would find it convenient for himself.

In his earlier exchanges with the leader of the opposition, the First Minister was fulsome in his praise for the Supreme Court judgment. But would he agree with me that what we've seen today is the making of new law, which the Supreme Court, of course, does have the power to do? There's no doubt that prerogative powers are governed by the common law; that's been the case for 400 years, and nobody disputes that general proposition. But, previously, the use of the prerogative power to order a prorogation, and indeed the length of time for which that prorogation lasts, has always been regarded as inherently a political matter. And that for the courts to stray into this political arena carries with it certain dangers, which are obvious.

In her summary of the judgment, Baroness Hale said this morning that,

'prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about.'

One glaring omission in the judgment, of course, is any reference to the referendum, and the role that the British people have to play in their future. And when she said that Parliament, the House of Commons, as the elected representatives of the people, have a voice, what if they are not representing what the people voted for in June 2016, when 17.4 million people voted to leave, and now a remain Parliament is doing everything it possibly can to frustrate what the people voted for?

Well, the Member, I'm sure, will want to congratulate the Labour Party on resolving this issue by putting that decision back in the hands of the people. All his problems of the House of Commons will evaporate, people will be able to vote on this again. Now I hear the Member shout at me for, I think, at least the dozenth time this afternoon, 'What about a general election?' And I say to him that I think a referendum is best addressed through a second referendum. A general election can be won on 35 per cent of the voting population. That does not seem to me to be a sound basis for overturning or readdressing an issue that, as he tells me week after week after week, elicited the largest number of people ever to vote on a subject. Better, I think, that we put that decision back in the hands of the people, in a second opportunity. He will have his opportunity to make his case—I know he will make it whenever he has the chance. But others will have an opportunity to make their cases as well. It's always been baffling to me, Llywydd, why Members on the floor of this Assembly are so allergic to the idea that people could be asked again for their view on the most important topic that faces us. My party is committed to that; I think democrats ought to be.

I think things are moving pretty quickly in response to the Supreme Court ruling earlier today. We know that, in the United States, Democratic Senators are beginning impeachment steps against President Trump and we are hearing that opposition Members of Parliament are considering beginning impeachment processes against Boris Johnson, should he refuse to resign. Now, as a party, we will support that; it's understood that Members of your party too are willing to support those steps. Would that be a step that you would like to see taking place, as First Minister?

Llywydd, I think the Member probably has the advantage of me, in being able to follow the unfolding events from where he is sitting in the Chamber, whereas I have been standing here and unable to see anything for well over an hour now. He'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I say that I want to study those emerging ideas before coming to a view on them, without having had any chance to see them for myself.