The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, and amendment 2 in the name of Neil McEvoy.

That brings us to the Brexit debate. I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NNDM7170 Rebecca Evans, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Does not agree to the UK Parliament enacting the Withdrawal Agreement Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

2. Notes that the Welsh Government will lay a Legislative Consent Memorandum under Standing Order 29 to inform the Assembly’s formal consideration on consent in due course.

Motion moved.

Llywydd, first of all, I would like to thank you and fellow Members for agreeing to the staging of this debate in the Assembly this afternoon. In bringing this debate forward, I would like to explain why we believe this Parliament should not agree to the EU withdrawal agreement conditionally agreed by the UK Government and the European Council last Thursday as it is currently drafted. I would also like to explain our approach to considering legislative consent for the withdrawal Bill. Let me start with the deal—with the agreement reached. This includes two elements: first of all, the withdrawal agreement, which will bind the UK under international law, and, secondly, the political declaration, which is an intermediate framework essentially and which notes the intention of both sides in terms of the longer term relationship.

In the case of the withdrawal agreement, the only element that has changed since the previous element agreed with Theresa May is the protocol on Northern Ireland. This is interesting in and of itself because many Conservative Members of Parliament, including many Cabinet members, seem to have had a Damascene conversion. Their opposition to many elements of the agreement appears to have disappeared. To give you two examples, I could list their unwillingness for there to be a continuing role for the European Court of Justice in terms of citizens’ rights, and, secondly, on the payment in terms of unconcluded commitments.

The political statement has changed more substantially, but it has changed in a way that is entirely contrary to what we would have wanted to see, weakening the relationship between us in the future to being one that would be based on a free trade agreement alone.

Llywydd, this is a bad deal for Wales and a bad deal for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a bad deal for Wales because it would clearly damage our economy, above all our manufacturing and agri-food sectors. It would see new, significant non-tariff barriers to trade, even if tariffs themselves were ultimately avoided. Now, we have not seen the UK Government's economic impact analysis, but their previous modelling, in line with many other serious economic analyses, suggested such an outcome would lead to a shortfall in gross domestic product of around 6.7 per cent over a 15-year period when compared to what would occur if we were to remain within the European Union—an outcome, in other words, Llywydd, more than twice as bad as Theresa May's deal, and an outcome that would make us all poorer and cost jobs and investment right across Wales. It's a bad deal for Wales, Llywydd, because there are no legally binding commitments to maintaining employment, environmental and consumer rights and protections, simply an aspiration in the political declaration from which this UK Government could simply walk away.

It's a bad deal because it would not put an end to uncertainty—the nonsense that is talked about just getting Brexit done, as if this agreement was somehow the end of the road rather than simply the beginning. As some of the European Research Group, seduced to give up their principles and support this agreement, have themselves claimed, it is quite possible that at the end of the transition period, only 14 short months away, we could still end up leaving with no deal at all, or rather Great Britain could end up leaving with no deal, because Northern Ireland's long-term relationship with the EU is firmly set, at least until 2024, and in practice almost certainly indefinitely.

Now, Llywydd, I don't come here this afternoon to criticise the Northern Ireland protocol. It serves its purpose—the red line set out at the start of the negotiations by the European Union of ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. For us, preventing the return of violence in Northern Ireland must always come first, but we cannot neglect the impact of these proposals on our ports here in Wales, serious as we believe those to be, or the barriers which this agreement puts in the path of Welsh businesses. And that is doubly the case, Llywydd, because whereas the protocol previously was a backstop that both the EU 27 and the UK were committed to trying to avoid coming into existence, what is now proposed is a permanent arrangement that puts Northern Ireland in a different economic zone to Great Britain, with a hard border in the Irish sea—something that the Prime Minister claimed as recently as 2 July that no Conservative Prime Minister would ever agree to.   

Will you take an intervention? Thank you for taking the intervention. It's just on that particular point. This is not a permanent arrangement, is it? It will be superseded should there be a free trade agreement with the European Union and, indeed, there's an opportunity for the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on this matter on a regular basis in order to bring it to an end. So, why do you say that this is a permanent arrangement, when very clearly it is not?

Well, Llywydd, on the first point, the Member is simply mistaken. He doesn't understand what the free trade agreement would do and why it certainly doesn't do what he claimed. His Government, having set off originally, having promised the DUP that they would have a veto on this agreement, then sold the DUP down the river. In future, the Northern Ireland Assembly will just require a simple majority, and that simple majority will always be there to extend the arrangement that this agreement sets out. That's why I say it's permanent, and that's why I say that your Prime Minister, who went to Belfast and said, as I quoted earlier this afternoon, 'Never', he said, 'never in any circumstances, wherever the suggestion might come from, will I ever agree to a border in the Irish sea', and that, a few short weeks later, is exactly what he has done. 

Now, if British standards diverge away from those of the EU, then Welsh businesses will not be able to export goods that meet UK standards to Northern Ireland. More generally, goods from third countries that will be able to be put on the market in Wales, England and Scotland as a result of any new trade deals, those goods will not be able to be imported into Northern Ireland if they do not also meet EU standards. Such goods will also incur any applicable EU tariffs, and these can only be reclaimed if it can be proved that they will not be sold on to the Republic, including as components or ingredients of other products. And yesterday, as we discovered, even goods from Northern Ireland will have to have export certificates to travel into Great Britain, even if that news came as a surprise to the Secretary of State in the Department for Exiting the European Union, who is meant to be in charge of all of this.

Let's be in no doubt, Llywydd, that this is a huge breach in the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, and a huge breach of trust by the Prime Minister. For all these reasons, we believe that the National Assembly cannot and should not support this deal, and that we should signal now in unequivocal terms that, in the absence of fundamental change, we will not give legislative consent to legislation to implement this bad deal. Now, legislative consent may not be a term used widely beyond this Chamber, but what it means is important. It means that the UK Parliament should only make changes to our powers and responsibilities if we have agreed to those changes being made. It is a fundamental building block of the system that enables this Government and this Senedd to take decisions that meet the needs of Wales. And this legislation, the withdrawal agreement Bill, a 100-page, hugely complex piece of legislation, which Parliament had not seen until yesterday, will certainly need an LCM here in the Senedd. Indeed, we have received a letter from the Department for Exiting the European Union asking for our consent.

Now, why should that be? Well, the Bill will, for example, restrict us for at least a year from passing any legislation incompatible with EU law. It will set up an independent monitoring authority to protect EU citizens' rights, which will affect the legislative powers of this Assembly. And it provides sweeping powers to UK Ministers to implement the Northern Ireland protocol that could even allow them unilaterally to change the Government of Wales Act itself.

Llywydd, this is the most important and far-reaching piece of legislation to come before Parliament for decades, and the most important ever that has required our legislative consent, yet the Government wants to ram it through all its stages at Westminster in less than 10 days. And it wants this Senedd and the Scottish Parliament to provide legislative consent even more quickly. It is quite unconscionable. As legislatures, we have to have time to do our fundamental job of scrutiny and to do it conscientiously and properly. To this end, I have written, along with the Scottish First Minister, to both the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council, making clear that it is essential for there to be an extension of the article 50 period to enable us to fulfil our constitutional duty.

Of course, the Prime Minister has tried to railroad Parliament by threatening the catastrophe of a 'no deal' Brexit, and he's been at it again in the House of Commons today—'It's my way or no way'—and that's no way to act in a democracy. The tactics of a 'bully boy', to quote Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Attorney General during this decade.

Now, I sincerely hope that Parliament will refuse to agree a timetable whose sole purpose is to spare the blushes of a Prime Minister who insisted that he would deliver Brexit by 31 October 'do or die', with the arrogance with which we have had to become accustomed. That is one reason why, while we will produce a legislative consent memorandum later today, we too need proper time for the Senedd to do its work. It is only if this opportunity is denied to us that I will ask you, Llywydd, to consider allowing the Senedd to have such a motion in front of it in the next nine days.

In the meantime, the message of this National Assembly to the Prime Minister must be clear: this Senedd must be given the time needed to discharge the responsibilities that the law requires us to discharge. We need an extension of article 50 and, as required by the law, the Prime Minister must seek to achieve this in good faith. Then we need to put the issue back to the people in a referendum with 'remain' on the ballot paper. If you believe this deal is really in the interests of this country, then you will not be afraid to allow that to happen.

In the meantime, this deal is a bad deal for Wales and a bad deal for the United Kingdom. We will not support it as it stands and, on this side, we know Wales is better off remaining in the European Union.

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Paul Davies.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

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

2. Notes that Her Majesty's Government has secured a deal with the European Union that will enable Wales, and the rest of the United Kingdom, to leave on the 31 October 2019.

3. Regrets the adverse impact that further delay and uncertainty will have on Welsh businesses, the public sector and other non-governmental organisations. 

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to support the UK Government as it seeks to enact legislation to deliver the UK's exit from the European Union by the 31 October 2019.

5. Believes that should the Withdrawal Agreement not receive the support of the UK Parliament a UK general election should be held. 

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I rise to speak to the amendment, tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives.

Regardless of whether the Welsh Government accepts the new deal that has been reached between the UK Government and the European Union, it must be remembered that this deal was accepted by both partners and is, at the very least, an attempt to deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum—a result that showed that the people of Wales want to leave the European Union. And so I have to say that I continue to be frustrated to hear the First Minister taking a position that directly contradicts the will of the people of Wales, particularly as there is nothing in his comments that respects the referendum result nor shows any commitment to delivering that referendum result. I've seen nothing in the endless statements that the Welsh Government has delivered in recent months that shows any shred of respect for the referendum result. Instead, we've heard excuses for delaying Brexit, constant political point scoring and a general disregard of the views of the Welsh people—[Interruption.] Not at the moment. Now, Jean-Claude Juncker was right to say that this is a fair and balanced deal, and, above all else, it shows that, with a commitment to finding solutions and with an attitude that's willing to compromise, a deal can be secured. Perhaps if the Welsh Government had been more willing to compromise and work with the UK Government, then maybe Wales could have had more of a stake in the negotiations. And I give way to the Member for Blaenau Gwent.

I'm grateful to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. He says that we should be respecting the result of the referendum, but, of course, it was the Conservative Party that, three months after the Welsh referendum on devolution, voted against a Second Reading of the Bill to give life to that referendum. So, when it comes to respecting the will of the people, the Conservatives don't have a very good record, do they?

You know full well—the Member knows full well—that I respected that referendum result and he should respect this referendum result. And let me remind the Member for Blaenau Gwent that 62 per cent of his constituents voted to leave the European Union and you should be standing up for those people.

Of course, the alternative—[Interruption.] Of course, the alternative to the deal before us is to push ahead without a deal. For months and months, we've heard about the impact that a 'no deal' Brexit would have on Wales, and this is one area where I do share the First Minister's concerns. Businesses and industry leaders right across Wales have made it clear that Wales will suffer if Britain leaves the European Union without a deal. As the options begin to become more binary, you'd think the Welsh Government has a moral duty to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit, therefore it's even more disappointing that the First Minister and his colleagues at Westminster are continuing to frustrate the process even at this late stage.

And I have to say—I have to say—[Interruption.] I will in a minute. I have to say that the MP for Don Valley, Caroline Flint, was absolutely right on Saturday to say that some of her colleagues had, and I quote,

'no idea or confidence that a deal would be before us today that would allow those of us in this House who want to secure a deal to move on and leave the European Union by 31 October? As a result, if the House votes for amendment (a) today, we will be forced—even if a deal is approved—to seek an extension until 31 January, underlining that the sponsors of Benn Act had only one motivation: to delay Brexit and stop it'.

Well, I have to say she's absolutely right. It's all about delaying Brexit and stopping Brexit. Indeed, the joint letter signed by the Welsh and Scottish First Ministers just confirms that Caroline Flint was right after all.

Now, report after report tells us that the current uncertainty over how Britain would leave the European Union has been harmful to Welsh businesses, and I say to the First Minister: we're now in a position to end that current uncertainty with a comprehensive deal, and so I fail to understand why the Welsh Government would want to extend that period of uncertainty any longer than absolutely necessary. However, instead of acknowledging the end of that uncertainty, the First Minister's response to the agreed deal was to make it clear that a deal would lead to untold damage to the Welsh economy and to Welsh jobs, because this Government is so committed to remaining in the European Union that it's willing to go against the will of the people of Wales. And that's the Welsh Government's Brexit position all over, isn't it: no settlement, no strategy and certainly no supporting the result of the referendum.

The First Minister should come clean once and for all and admit that he and his Government has no intention of supporting any deal where Britain leaves the European Union, and so it begs the question: why doesn't the Welsh Government just come out and say that it wants to revoke article 50? At least Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they just want to stop Brexit. Let me remind Members that the real damage to the Welsh economy and jobs has been done by successful Welsh Labour and Labour-led Governments, which have failed to deliver for Welsh businesses and Welsh industries. And let's take the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report, which showed that Wales hasn't taken advantage of the funds available in the past that were linked to the trans-European transport network. Therefore, it's clear that the Welsh Government has failed to collaboratively work with the UK Governments and the EU to better support Wales's infrastructure in the past. And, if I have time, I will give way to the Member for Caerphilly.

I think one of the things that the leader of the Conservatives is good at is scrutiny. Would he not agree—and let's just try and take some of the party political heat out of this—would he not agree that three days for a Bill of this magnitude is just not long enough to provide the right level of scrutiny? Would he not just agree that?

Well, Llywydd, the parties opposite can't have it both ways. They claim that this legislation is rushed, but they were more than happy to push through the Benn Act at a record pace at Westminster. So, you can't have it both ways. [Interruption.] You can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand—[Interruption.] You can't say on the one hand—[Interruption.] You can't say on the one hand that this has been rushed through and then you rush through legislation.

Llywydd—[Interruption.] Llywydd—[Interruption.] Llywydd—[Interruption.]

The Member to finish in silence, please.

Llywydd, the UK Government is delivering on the outcome of the referendum in 2016 and giving the people of Wales what they want: an exit from the European Union. We're hearing calls for a second referendum whilst the Welsh Government take every opportunity to remind us how divisive the last one was. However, the opposition parties at Westminster don't seem to know what they want. They keep frustrating the process and moving the goalposts. They clearly didn't expect a deal to be secured and yet they don't want to table a vote of no confidence and take this matter back to the people. Surely the people of Wales deserve better. If the Welsh Government really want to take this back to the people then it's time to call for a general election, and, Llywydd, the First Minister and his colleagues can lay out their stall to the people of Wales and the people can have their say once and for all.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 2, tabled in his name.

Amendment 2—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that, if the Withdrawal Agreement Bill leads to a no-deal Brexit, there should be a referendum on Welsh national sovereignty.

Amendment 2 moved.

Labour and Plaid Cymru have brought a motion to the Welsh Parliament calling for the withdrawal agreement Bill that will pave the way for Brexit to be rejected as it stands. But they've not given any detail in their motion about what they would like to see instead. That's a dereliction of duty, lacking any kind of leadership. As a result, I've introduced an amendment to give Wales a clear alternative and a clear way forward. For the first time in our nation's history, our Welsh Parliament will now vote on whether to hold a referendum on Welsh national sovereignty in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. That's the referendum Wales really needs. It's the referendum we've always needed, and I ask you not to deny the Welsh people the choice and the democratic right to vote on our nation's future.

Our country can and must move forward from the mess created by Westminster and push forward to stand on our own two feet as a proud nation. It's an old concept, called democracy. I ask you to support my amendment today and to support a vote on Welsh national sovereignty. Diolch yn fawr.

Once again, politics, our Parliament, the countries of these islands, have been forced to the edge of a precipice by one of the most irresponsible, reckless Governments that we've ever seen. A decision, which, I think we all accept, is one of the most momentous that any Parliament will have made in generations is going to be forced through in a matter of days. A Bill, running at over 100 pages, published overnight, no impact assessment—and instead of politics proceeding through cool reflection, effective scrutiny, what we're having is politics working through bitter argument and through threats.

The latest threat, of course, is that, 'If you don't vote for our timetable then we'll pull the whole Bill and we'll denounce you as enemies of the people'. That's the spirit, unfortunately, in which this Conservative Government have approached this issue, certainly since the current Prime Minister has taken over. It's completely unacceptable. How has it got to this? Basically, the Tory party has been taken over by the extreme right wing of its party. And surely—. Paul Davies, you know better than this in your heart of hearts. You've acquiesced. How is it—[Interruption.] We've ended up in a position—[Interruption.] We've ended up in a position, right, where the mandate from the 2016 referendum has been taken as a mandate for the most extreme, hardest of all Brexits. They even call themselves 'the Spartans' without a hint of irony—some phalanx of people who think that politics is war conducted by other means. Let’s remember this, it didn't end well for the Spartans, by the way—they ended up internally polarised, externally marginalised, and they ended up having to rejoin the Achaean league that they had left. There’s a moral lesson there for you, look.

It could have been and it should have been different, right? There was the opportunity for compromise here. Despite the fact that we are passionately a pro-remain party, we were prepared to compromise. We supported the infinitely better option of a single market membership and customs union. In fact, we will support an amendment today at Westminster on that basis. But, no, what happened is that the Conservative Government took us further and further to the extreme, right-wing fringes of this argument, and indeed its party.

I must admit, I was surprised by Mr Johnson coming back with a deal, because I did not expect even him to actually be guilty of one of the greatest acts of political treachery and dishonesty that I have ever seen—and I use my words advisedly. As the First Minister has said, this is a man who went to the DUP conference and said in terms that no British Conservative Government could or should sign up to a regulatory and customs border in the Irish sea, and that is precisely what he has done. There are echos here, aren’t there, of the grandfather of Ulster unionism, Edward Carson, in 1921 saying,

'What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.'

It was ever thus. And there’s a lesson here for us in Wales as well: this man is not a man that can be trusted. What he has done to the DUP he will do to us as well. Don't trust his words.

Look at the political declaration—the latest version of it—it’s full of qualified language: 'should' not 'will'. Therein lies the—. There are no binding commitments there at all. Section 79 talks about 'the level playing field'. The most ambiguous phrase possible: 'building upon'. We all know 'building upon'—it actually is no basis to believe anything. We will end up in the extreme hard Brexit. The direction of travel is absolutely clear.

We can't accept this. This is no way to run a country. This is certainly no way to ruin ours. We have to do our job and stand up to the Conservative Party. It’s a shame that the Conservative Party is not prepared to do that themselves. How can we actually assess this without even the transparency of an economic impact? We will end up in a position where Wallonia will have more power over the future direction of our economy than we do in Wales. That's what's being served up to us. I have to say, look, the only way to resolve this, because of the vacuum of leadership that is Conservative Party now, is to take it back to the people so that they can have the final say.

I rise today with great disappointment that, once again, this Chamber is wasting the time and the money of the Welsh public. This motion is—[Interruption.]—contradictory. If point 1 of the motion comes to pass and the UK Parliament doesn't enact the withdrawal agreement Bill, then point 2 will not apply, as there would be no need for an LCM under Standing Order 29. It’s totally nonsensical and it’s not for this place to decide, is it? It is currently being discussed in Parliament, so why on earth are we pre-empting any decision? This motion today is nothing more than a public relations stunt for the Welsh Government and its little helpers, and my group will be voting against it.

Will you take an intervention?

No. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because—

[Inaudible.]—isn't in her script. Sorry.

She loves you too, Alun.

Yes, I love you too, Alun. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because it doesn't protect—[Interruption.] I'll start again. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because it doesn't protect workers' rights and environmental protections. What guff.

What it will do, as we have endlessly discussed here, is transfer responsibility for doing that from the EU to the UK Government. Why does Labour believe that any UK Government won't preserve those rights?

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No. Most workers' rights we enjoy today actually came through the UK Parliament, often following campaigns by your trade unions. Many such rights in the UK are far superior to the minimum provisions given by the EU. For example, paid holiday leave: EU legislation is four weeks, the UK is 5.6 weeks. Maternity leave: the EU is 14 weeks and the UK is 52 weeks. In the UK, it is 90 per cent pay for six weeks and then £140 for 33 weeks on equal pay. This was law in 1970, well before the UK even joined the EU. On wages, the EU has no minimum wage, unlike the UK, and we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. On discrimination, the UK had laws on sex discrimination in 1975 and race discrimination in 1965—long before the EU. Health and safety: we in the UK have some of the best health and safety at work rules and have done since 1974. 

Llywydd, rather than debating the unknown outcome of a vote in Westminster, this Chamber should be debating things that it does have influence and power over: the NHS in Wales, Betsi still in special measures; the future of Welsh farming once we leave the EU to give farmers in Wales certainty; or the fact that Cardiff Airport—[Interruption.] Llywydd?

This is disgraceful.

Or the fact that Cardiff Airport—

Will you take an intervention?

No. Or the fact that Cardiff Airport has got yet another cash injection when north Wales, yet again, misses out under this Welsh Labour Government. 

Where were you when we've discussed these things? You weren't here. 

The Labour Party in Westminster—

You were out of the Chamber when we've discussed these things. Turn up.

The Labour Party in Westminster stopped a meaningful vote, yet the Labour Party in Wales wants another meaningless debate and another meaningless vote. Thank you.

Carwyn Jones—[Interruption.] Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm going to try and calm things down a little, if I may. It's perfectly correct that this, the elected National Assembly of the people of Wales should debate these matters. It is a legal issue that we're discussing here and that is the question of an LCM. So, this is not time wasted in some way; we're doing this because a request has come to us from a Whitehall department and it's a request that, I suspect, will not be one that finds favour with us. I don't accept that, in some way, we should know our place here and not discuss issues that affect directly the people of Wales.

Could I remind those Members who claim, on the Conservative benches, that the Welsh Government has no strategy and has always opposed Brexit, that in 2016, together with Plaid Cymru, we published a White Paper that proposed Brexit? And it was a Brexit that included, yes, membership of the customs union and it included, yes, as much access as possible to the single market. Now, there are some who'll say, 'Well, that's not Brexit.' There's no evidence of that at all. And this is the problem. In 2016, there was no argument about what Brexit was meant to look like other than the fact that Britain had to leave the EU. Well, my view is that all you Brexiteers out there, you'd have had Brexit by now if you'd actually listened to the Welsh Government and to Plaid Cymru back in 2016, and Britain would no longer by a member of the EU. Instead, we've had three and a half years of utter chaos in Westminster.

And, what is the sense in rushing through in days the most important legislation that has been placed before Parliament, I'd argue, for at least 50 years? And we're going to go through it in days? That cannot possibly be right. All to meet a deadline that is artificially put there by the Prime Minister. There's no reason why it has to be done by 31 October. Now we hear the Prime Minister saying, 'Well, I might pull the vote.' Well, what's he got to hide, if that's the case? It surely cannot be right that a Government that cannot get its way just simply says, 'If we can't get our way, we'll take the ball home.' That's not the way to govern and that's not the way to reach out to others, either. All because of an artificial timetable. As the First Minister has said, we are asked to provide our consent today, almost, or tomorrow, maybe next week, but in such a short space of time that it is simply not possible to have an informed debate, regardless of the views of various Members in this Chamber.

I do not accept that this deal gives certainty. I wish it did, but I do not accept that it does. It kicks the can down the road to the end of 2020, so there will be discussions over the next year and if those discussions come to naught then the Government will decide whether or not the UK leaves with no deal or not. That cannot possibly be democracy. It's another year of uncertainty of course.

Unfortunately, that's the way that the EU decided it wanted to conduct this exit from the European Union. They said it had to be done via a withdrawal agreement and then, following the agreement of that withdrawal agreement, the discussions on the future trade relationship with the EU could take place. So do you accept that that's not actually a problem of the UK Government's making, it's a problem of the EU's making?

What did you think would happen? The level of naivety among Brexiteers stuns me. And, yes, we would have certainty if we'd said, 'We will stay in the customs union.' That would be certainty. The problem of Ireland would have gone away. The issue of Ireland would have gone away. That wouldn't have been an issue that we would be discussing today.

I come back to Ireland. It gives me no pleasure to say, 'I told you so three years ago'—

Member of the Senedd:

Here we go.

Yes, here we go, here we go. Yes, 3,000 people dead in Northern Ireland; 'here we go', say the Tory benches. That shows exactly what they think of Northern Ireland and how blind they are to the issue of Ireland itself. Let me remind Members that this is not a question of trade; this is a question of peace. It's a question of peace. Since 1998, in my wife's home city, people are not being killed on a daily basis because of their religion and their political beliefs. This done badly carries the risk of those days returning, and there's no need for it.

Let's look at the trade issues here. One of the issues I raised about Northern Ireland does affect Wales, and I'll come on to that in a second. It appeared that if you had goods originating in Northern Ireland then you could go into the British market or the European single market without any need to have any extra paperwork. That was a competitive advantage that would have ensured that companies would have left Wales and gone to Northern Ireland. Why would you stay here when you could go somewhere where you had open access to both markets? Now, I don't know, and neither does Steve Barclay, the Brexit Secretary. Yesterday he said two entirely different things. He said Northern Ireland businesses wouldn't need export certificates then he said they did. So what does that mean now? They now need export certificates to enter both those markets, which makes them a far worse place to actually do business. And this is the problem: the uncertainty is unbelievable, and these are not small details, these are details that are hugely important for the future.

I can see the time, Llywydd. There are no impact assessments. I wouldn't buy a house without a survey. I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it. Why on earth should I buy a Brexit deal that hasn't even been assessed properly? That surely makes no sense at all. And it does affect Wales, finally. Welsh ports will be affected. There will be customs check back in Welsh ports, of that there is no doubt.

And the final point I make is this: I agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to express its view on the economic relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but that's a devolved matter. That's a devolved matter. As soon as the UK Government concedes that a devolved Government and Assembly has a say over a matter that is actually not devolved, the same must apply here, and the same must apply to Scotland. The argument that Wales is represented in the UK Parliament doesn't hold, because so is Northern Ireland, and it comes back to the point that I've made many, many times in the past, and that is the UK will not hold together unless we scrutinise things like this properly, and it will not hold together until we get constitutional change. That is the challenge for all in this Chamber, but, Llywydd, I have to say that to take through this legislation in the space of a matter of days is a constitutional outrage.

The former First Minister always speaks with great passion on these issues through his family connections and we respect that. However, I would remind him that both Mrs May's deal and the current deal is and was supported by the Republic of Ireland's Government, so I do regret some of the rhetorical flourishes you made and threw at our benches. I think that was very unfair, frankly.

You said it. 'Here we go again', you said.

I didn't say anything. I was just sat here listening.

I think what we must realise in a point of crisis like this is that we have come to the time when we must decide. Our EU partners have been very patient. They need to move on, just as we do. I would have much preferred Mrs May's deal. It did seem to me to fully respect the referendum result, which was clear, that the people—unexpectedly, probably—wanted to withdraw from the European Union, but the vote was very close. And also, I don't think all the issues of trade were fully debated and grasped by everyone. I don't grasp them to this day, and I've studied them quite closely. And so there was an element of work in progress, and I thought Mrs May came up with a reasonable way of getting us forward.

The current offer is a harder form of Brexit, if it leads to a transition and then a free trade agreement at the end of 2020. But its present form is just the divorce deal to get us into the transition. And I don't like the fact that the legislation would have to be accelerated. I do take the view that constitutional matters need to be fully examined, but I do remind Members on the opposite benches that you passed at great speed, under the emergency measure, the continuity Act, a year or 18 months ago. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I suppose, in these matters.

What we are facing are the capital terms, really, of a deal. The arrangements for Ireland and what sort of future we might have if we have a free trade agreement—all that, in terms of the future relationship, will be determined in the transition period. It is not rooted in the current legislation, three quarters of which is, of course, what Mrs May proposed. So, I think we need to be very solemn and careful about the point we have reached. Myself, I do think, because of the need to rush the legislation, that people can reasonably say that it needs further examination and, perhaps, the deadline of 31 October should be extended a bit. If the usual channels could agree for two or three weeks, or even four weeks, to thoroughly review the divorce agreement, I think I could be persuaded to agree to that. But the thing is, we all know that those that do not want to leave the EU and respect the referendum result want either to attach a referendum to this Bill or to require us to enter a customs agreement with the EU. And that, I think, would destroy the guts of Brexit, as far as those that support Brexit are concerned. And we must be honest with the electorate that it will do that.

Will the Member take an intervention?

I will give way. 

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I've just heard you and, clearly, you are as deeply worried about the accelerated pace as I am, particularly in ensuring time to look at these documents. But you've just mentioned that people wanted to look at the common market, that the customs union is an issue for many people. I was faced by many questions—that they didn't want the EU but, when they voted in 1970, it was for a common market, which effectively is a customs union. So, a large proportion of the people actually felt that the customs union wasn't the issue, because they wanted the economic agenda, they just didn't want the political agenda.

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

Well, you know, we may be at the point where you could convince people of that, but, frankly, nothing would have pleased me in the last couple of years than that there would have been a huge shift in public opinion and an obvious demonstration that the public wanted another vote. The problem is, if we had another vote, it could well be the same result. And these arguments have been aired for the last two or three years, and they've not shifted public opinion.

But this is where I think we are: we have an enfeebled Government that cannot now control its own agenda and, frankly, the thought that having lost the timetable motion any Government would proceed with substantial legislation I do think is fanciful. We've come to the end. We now need a Government that has a mandate to act. We need a general election. It's quite clear that that's where we have reached. And I have to say, the First Minister said that we were afraid of a referendum—I think he meant Brexiteers. Well, I'm not a Brexiteer. I don't know if they're afraid of a referendum, or not, but I do think you're afraid of a general election, and I think that's what lies at the heart of your—albeit forceful—speech this afternoon. But can I just finish—?

Will you give way?

Oh, do I have time to give way again?

Yes. 

I'll give way. 

I am very grateful to the Member for allowing me. The difficulty is this: in 2017, there were many in this Chamber who thought there was one result to the election; in fact, it delivered something unclear. What if the election results in another hung Parliament? Then we end up in a situation where there's no mandate for anything. Surely, in those circumstances, the only way out of it is to have another referendum.

No-one can predict with certainty what will happen in a general election, but I cannot see any way than refreshing the current Parliament and attempting to form a Government that has a mandate to act. That may be a coalition Government—who knows? But that's always the situation, at great points of peril, in a general election. You have to face the electorate and deal with the outcome they gave you.

But can I just make this appeal? Whatever Government is elected at the general election that must be impending—I certainly hope it is—will first and foremost pursue a unionist course, because what we don't want at the end of 2020 is leaving without a deal.

May I say first of all that I agree with David Melding when he said that we have come to the end? I don't think there is a better deal, that there is some silver bullet that can solve this problem politically in Westminster. That's why I believe, and have believed for some time, that the solution is to put this back in the hands of the people in a further referendum. There may have been arguments over the past few years—'Don't have a referendum as an option because that will weaken our hand in negotiations.' There may have been some truth in that, but if we have reached the very end, now is the time to put this back in the hands of the people. And I will say this: the fact that I have a daughter who is 19 years old, and that there are hundreds of thousands of young people like her who didn't have the right to vote in the referendum in 2016 because they were too young, and that they now are old enough to vote, that in itself is a good enough reason to go back to ask them, because it's their future that we're talking about. If we do want to ensure that democracy is as contemporary as it can be, is as sensitive as it can be to the reality of the views of the people of Britain, not a snapshot taken three and half years ago, then let's go back and have a further vote.

But that's not a reason—[Interruption.] If anybody wants to intervene, then I am happy to take the intervention.

Yes, I will. First of all, would you not agree that you've had 40 years to prove to the British people that the European Union is their best option? And after 40 years of being in the European Union, the British people said, 'That is not the option we want. We want to come out of the European Union because we believe that Britain would be better off outside of that union.'

Let me say this: if in this referendum that I want people say, 'We leave'—we leave. [Interruption.] [Inaudible]—from the Conservative benches, 'How many referendums do you want?' If there's a referendum, as we want now—that is it, if it's 'leave'. What our argument is: we did not have the information to be able to make an informed decision. Now, we do.

Very, very quickly—if that referendum, the next referendum, said, 'We leave the European Union', would you then accept that?

I've just said that. 

But why would you accept that one and not the previous one?

I've just answered that question. 

Are you taking another one? 

No, I must press on, because I want to talk about the port of Holyhead, because we're talking today about the agreement that is on the table and what it actually means in practice. I could talk about what leaving on the terms that are being proposed now through this withdrawal would mean for traffic in Holyhead, for congestion in Holyhead, for the backing up of lorries on the A55 and so on, and for the inconvenience caused, but I'm not going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about my very real concern about what will happen to the port of Holyhead as the hugely important strategic port it is under what is being proposed now.

We can talk about the political treachery of what Boris Johnson has done in proposing now that there is a border down the Irish sea. I'll talk, if I may, about the practical consequences of that. Trade through the port of Holyhead has grown 700 per cent or thereabouts since the creation of the single market. Holyhead is a hugely important port, not only because it’s well run, it has great staff, and it's an effective and efficient port, but it’s successful because it is the easiest way for trade to flow from Europe through Britain on to Ireland. So, much of what is being proposed now threatens that position that Holyhead has—that privileged position of being the best route for trade. Fifty per cent of the trade through Dublin and Holyhead comes from Northern Ireland. Now, under the terms of what is being proposed now, there would be parts of that trade traffic that would be tariff-free, which would have easier access directly into ports in Scotland and England. That would directly put the port of Holyhead under disadvantage. We know what’s going on in terms of planning for direct traffic for trade from Ireland to continental Europe. Some 40 per cent of the trade that comes through the port of Holyhead goes straight over the land bridge that Britain is and on to continental Europe. We already know that investment is being put into cutting out that land bridge altogether, as Andrew Potter of Cardiff University said:

'Rather than going through the hassle of going through two ports in the UK—you'd be able to stick your truck on a ferry and sail round the UK without ever effectively leaving the European Union.'

And hassle is really, really important here, because we have tariff barriers and we have non-tariff barriers, and those non-tariff barriers are the things that make trade flow quickly or slowly, and what we have in this proposal, in the withdrawal deal, is a proposal to make Holyhead and traffic through Wales, boosting the Welsh economy, a hassle. And we will lose out, because, at the end of the day, trade will find the easiest route and we are the ones that will lose out. And when I say ‘we are the ones’, I have mostly in my mind those hard-working families in Holyhead, on the Isle of Anglesey, that will find that that port—which has been so vital to the economy of my constituency, of my community—will find itself at a disadvantage, and I will never support a deal that places my community under a disadvantage.

Deputy Presiding Officer, there are really three points that I wanted to contribute in this particular debate. The first point actually relates to the timescale for the consideration of this. I started reading these 450 pages this morning. I don’t believe there is a single person in this Chamber who has yet had time or the ability to actually digest the incredibly technical content of this.

Now, the Prime Minister said that, if he doesn’t get his timetable through, he will pull the Bill. Well, listen, I think that on something as important as this, constitutionally, if he’d rather pull his Brexit Bill than have it face proper security, then he shouldn’t have brought it before Parliament in the very first place. And it is also making a mockery of our parliamentary procedures internationally.

I see this comment from the Institute for Government, who’ve given so much advice during this process. What they say is:

'the Brexit Bill would have less time in the Commons than the Wild Animals in Circuses Act.'

They say, an Act, that affects,

'only 19 wild animals left in circuses in the U.K.—among them a zebra, two camels, three racoons and a zebu.'

I don’t know what a zebu is.

'All of whom now have the honor of attracting more House of Commons' debate than…the historic legal treaty securing the U.K.’s departure from the European Union.'

This is not the way to do proper constitutional reform.

That’s the first point I make. The second point I make relates to the issue of workers' rights, which to many of us has been such a fundamental issue. It's an issue that was such an important promise during the Brexit referendum—that there would be guarantees of workers' rights. I remember how hard we fought to get the social chapter signed, and how pleased we were when it was signed in 1997. And I tell you, it was a fight—it was a fight on our side, because Blair wanted to cherry-pick bits and pieces, and it was really the trade unions who said, ‘No, we take the whole of the social chapter, because we signed up to social Europe.’ I’m thinking of a conversation with the First Minister the other day, who said, ‘Yes, I remember those debates well. What was the Tory position?’ ‘Up yours, Delors.’ Quite frankly, that has very much been part of the Tory position ever since.

There was a point that was made very cleverly, I think, by Keir Starmer during the debate in Westminster, and it was this—because we heard today from the UKIP/Brexit; whatever they’re called these days—if you're going to make the point that we have certain terms and conditions and employment legislation that is better than EU standards, well of course the point is that EU standards have always been a baseline. There has never been any restriction on providing better and higher standards, and if it is the case that you don't want to reduce employment legislation, then why abolish the baseline? The answer, as we know quite clearly, is because the intention is to shred the ability to protect employment rights—those rights that we got from the social chapter. And if you read this document—and I read those particular bits—there is no guarantee in there that that baseline will in any way be protected, and nor could it be protected, because in order to do a trade deal with the US, in order to do that US trade deal, we have to agree to the abolition and the lowering of standards in order to be compliant and have a level playing field with the United States. So, the Tory Party should be honest that that really is their intention and that has always been one of the big bugbears of membership of the EU in the first place anyway—the fact that it gave that social chapter and it had that particular social agenda.

I think the final point I'd like to make is this: if you refer to section 36 of the draft Bill, there is the most bizarre statement in there in terms of sovereignty, and sovereignty at a time, actually, when there's also the abolition of section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which is the body that actually gives time for Parliament to scrutinise international treaties. That is being abolished within the Bill, and I haven't heard any discussion of that yet. Just leaving that particular part aside, if we look at that part of the Bill in terms of sovereignty and so on, if the intention of Parliament is to rely on that section 36 and to proceed in such a way that it basically drives a nail into the coffin of Sewel, then that is again yet another move towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. I refer to this section within the legislative consent memorandum that went before the Scottish Parliament, and they refer to our own paper that we discussed and supported in this Chamber only the other week:

'The Welsh Government recently published proposals which endorsed the idea of the United Kingdom as an association based on a recognition of popular sovereignty in each part of the UK, and concluded that the traditional doctrine of sovereignty of parliament no longer provides a firm foundation for the constitution of the UK'.

That is the position that was adopted by this Chamber, recognised by the Scottish Parliament, but not recognised anywhere within any of these documents. And if we get to a situation where the UK Government presses ahead, it is the end of Sewel and it is the end of the primacy of the devolution statutes within our UK constitutional structure, and it is a step on the way to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Well, this is yet another skirmish in the endless battle between remainer Parliaments and the people of this country. I start by reminding people that 486 Members of Parliament out of 650 voted to remain, and 49 Members of this Assembly out of 60 voted to remain. All the major parties who fought the last general election fought it on the same wording as appeared in the Labour Party manifesto: 'Labour accepts the referendum result.' And they've spent the last three and a half years doing everything they possibly can to undermine that statement. We know that the First Minister and his colleagues, and, indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru and his colleagues, never really accepted the result of the referendum—

Will you take an intervention?

Well, I've hardly started yet, but, go on.

So, 'Securing Wales' Future', in terms of the document that this Chamber passed, you don't feel that was a serious, serious intervention.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I thought it was quite clear—'Securing Wales' Future'.

We have remainer Parliaments that are determined, and always have been determined, to defy the will of the people. Before the referendum campaign, every imaginable horror was conjured up by exactly the same people of what would happen if we left the customs union and the single market. There were plagues of boils and frogs and so on and so forth. So, the idea that these arguments,  which we’ve gone through endless times in the last three and half years, didn’t feature in the referendum campaign is an absurd rewriting of history. Only last week we were taking about Catalonia in this place, and the leader of Plaid Cymru was waxing lyrical about the right of the Catalonian people to determine their own future by means of a referendum. The Spanish Government, of course, takes a totally different view. As far as Plaid Cymru are concerned, in these debates, they have assumed the role of the Spanish Government because they are determined to keep us in the unity of the supranational empire, which is what Guy Verhofstadt describes it as, of the European Union. Britain and Wales should never be allowed to secure their freedom from this supranational body. Plaid Cymru are quite happy for us to be a colony in the Belgian empire; they just don’t want us to be a part of the United Kingdom. And the absurdity of that position is that whereas, however inadequate it might be—at the moment we’ve got 40 Members of Parliament at Westminster—if Wales were to be independent within the European Union, it would have a handful of Members of the European Parliament, you’d have a miniscule percentage of the votes in the Council of Ministers, and you’d have one European Commissioner, who would be bound to be independent. I give way.

Two of the 11 Catalan political prisoners are personal friends of mine. I went to Madrid penitentiary VI to visit them, and I asked them, 'What did you say to the likes of those who would say, "Well, look, the European Union—"'. And I regret the response of the European Union, and some of the member states—not all—including the UK Government, have been terrible on this. 'But what would you say?' He said, 'Look, we want Wales to be there alongside Catalonia in the Europe of the peoples that we’re trying to create.' That’s the future for us as small nations. We need that family of European nations where, different to this union, we will be an equal partner, respected. That’s the vision we’re fighting for—something you would never understand.

The absurdity of the assertion that Wales would be equal to Germany in the European Union requires no further demolition in my view. We all know the internal dynamics of the way the European Union works. [Interruption.] I think I must move on with my speech. [Interruption.] I must move on with my speech.

Come on, give way.

The honourable gentleman, who I greatly respect, can make his own speech, but I’m going to get on with mine.

This fundamentally is ultimately a question of democracy, and we cannot have a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union until we have delivered on the first. That is the whole point of this process. This is why, as David Melding has pointed out, as a passionate pro-European, that we must respect the wishes of the people or else undermine the faith in democracy in our own country. And we all know that the argument over the timetable at Westminster—I agree, actually, that three days isn’t sufficient to deal with the complications of a Bill of this kind—but we all know that arguments over timetables are fundamentally all about extending delay indefinitely so that Britain never leaves the EU. It’s Hotel California—you check out, but you can never leave. Well, the British people will get their way eventually, however long it takes. Fifty-three per cent of the public in Wales and in Britain voted to leave the EU, and we can’t go on like this indefinitely, denying them what they voted for. I think, like David Melding said, a general election is the way forward.

What we’re doing today, I think, is undermining the faith in this place—I don’t mind that, there’s isn’t much anyway outside of this building. But we are undermining more than that—faith in democracy itself, and that I really do care about. If ever there were a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy, we know there would be plenty of candidates for that in the leadership of Plaid Cymru and the leadership of the Labour Party and the whole of the political establishment of this country.

So, I say it doesn’t really matter what we do here today. We don’t even know yet whether the House of Commons is going to allow Boris Johnson to get his deal. Personally, I think not, and therefore that will make this whole proceeding otiose. So, what we should, as politicians, be doing is to deliver on what the British people, who are our masters, voted for.

I'll try and keep it brief, but I just heard the comments from the Member for Mid and West Wales highlighting actually false figures—it's not 53 per cent but 52 per cent, just to correct him. I know that he likes to exaggerate, even by one.

It's important that we understand democracy, and what democracy means is actually taking our time to scrutinise and deal with the issues. Now, two things. On the Bill—we are not discussing the legislative consent motion because it hasn't actually been laid yet—but, on the Bill, a Government that tries to put something through in three days is hiding from scrutiny, because this document, as Mick Antoniw has said—120 pages of a Bill, 126 pages of an explanatory memorandum, so far eight pages of amendments, plus the 500-plus pages of the withdrawal agreement itself, and the political declaration attached to that—if anyone can read all that and understand it, not just digest it, but understand what it means in the time of three days, well, they're telling you fibs, because it's impossible. I'm looking through this, I'm trying to read it, but it's taken me a long time to actually get to grips with it because you've got a lot of cross-referencing in this Bill to other aspects and to other political declarations. The Bill also says, by way of the political declaration, that you can't change it—that you can't change the political declaration. Paragraph 31(3) says that you abide by this in the future—anyone has to abide by this political declaration in the future. That's important.

So, you've got to work through this Bill. You've got to scrutinise this Bill very, very carefully, and three days is a joke. Now, people mentioned that it doesn't really need to be three days. Then tell your Government, 'Take time; take the time you need to do it, take the scrutiny you need to do it.' There is no rush. The European Parliament is not going to ratify this by 31 October, because they have already said that they're not going to do it this week. There is no plenary sitting next week. They're not going to do it until after 31 October. There is no rush other than the ego of Boris Johnson to say, 'I got this through the House of Commons by 31 October', for a political declaration in a general election. 

If we were just talking about the sole issue of how to conduct properly a Bill of this magnitude, I would agree with you; it does require time and it's obviously not going to get it. However, the First Minister has said this afternoon, in the most emphatic terms—and he's passionate about it and he's entitled to his opinion—that he doesn't want any deal; he wants to remain in the EU. And that's the problem, isn't it? All this is a proxy to derail the process and deny a decision at the moment on the fundamentals of this deal agreed between the UK Government and the EU. 

Obviously, you and I will not agree on that position. I'll go back to the actual motion in a minute, but the debate on the Bill, you've already agreed, and I think everyone in their hearts in this Chamber agrees, that you cannot do the job you're supposed to do in three days. It's impossible, particularly on such an important constitutional issue, which, as Rhun has said, affects the futures of our younger generation. We need to do it properly, 

Now, when we come to the actual agreement, yes, we may not have the same view on that agreement. And there are important aspects. Where is the economic impact analysis so that we can work out how this agreement addresses some of the concerns we had in the previous agreements? We have done much work in this Chamber, and in various committees, to look at the impact of previous agreements, whether they be a 'no deal', Theresa May's deal, or other aspects, and we know that every one has an impact upon us which takes us downwards, not upwards. So, what is the one on this particular deal? We haven't seen it. We know the transition period, actually, is for 14 months for a free trade agreement. No-one has yet told me that they can do an FTA in 14 months. We had the Finnish ambassador in yesterday in the committee—David knows this—who quite clearly had deep concerns about completing such an agreement in 14 months. And if you want an extension, you've got to make that decision by July next year, not December next year. So, actually, you've got eight months to make a decision whether you need an extension to the transition period, and the current Government doesn't give me the confidence that it will even seek that extension, so we could end up going out without a deal in December next year.

Now, we talk about aspects on the deal, wth the rules of origin still to be questioned, and, actually, this deal makes the rules of origin more difficult. That causes concerns for businesses and their transport and exportation. We still have the issue of the decision to jump over a precipice if we're not careful. That's still there. We need to really look very carefully at what the UK Government is trying to do. It's not just trying to, as Members on this bench and opposite there say, deliver on the referendum; it's actually trying to keep the promises of someone who sought the leadership of their party. That's what this is about. It's not about what's good for this country—it's about what's good for Boris Johnson. That's the real thrust of this Bill, and the real thrust of this agreement. Come off it—he dumped the DUP as soon as he could, because he knew that that was the best way he could get something by 31 October. So, who else will he dump, and when will he dump us? On 31 December 2020, because that's what he will do—you can't trust him to say or do anything different. So, the whole emphasis of this debate is really about: is this deal any better, and does it deliver on what the First Minister and the former First Minister clarified the Welsh Government's position has been, always has been—respect the referendum, but protect jobs and the economy? Does this deal do that? The answer is 'no', because it's actually worse than Theresa May's deal, which we knew damaged our economy. Then you have to question: why is he rushing this? Because he doesn't want to have scrutiny, because, actually, he wants to go into a general election with one message: 'I delivered this for you'. That's what this is about. It's not about delivering on the people's will—it's about delivering for the Tory party. We need to make sure the message from here is: that's not good enough for the people of Wales. The people of Wales deserve better than that, and we need to make sure that we represent my constituents, your constituents, and their best interests.

I want to say a few words about the issue of consent. The withdrawal agreement Bill has a number of failings that have been laid out this afternoon, but principal amongst these failings is the way in which Boris Johnson's Government is trying to force it through in this ridiculous timetable in Westminster, without giving Westminster or the devolved administrations adequate time to scrutinise it properly. Now this Bill, if it were passed, would fail to give this place the time to scrutinise future free trade agreements, and it would also not offer the people the chance to have a final say through a second referendum. Now, I know that Members throughout the Chamber have said a number of times in this debate, and a number of times in other debates, that the people have already had a chance to vote. Well, yes, they did vote; they voted when they were told that we'd have the easiest deal in history, and that we would have £350 million extra every week for the NHS—lies that have been exposed in the three years since. Now, consent has to be informed; it has to be sought again when things change. When the circumstances change, you cannot presume that consent has remained the same. That seems to me to be a fundamental point. I'll take the intervention.

Well, given the 53 per cent who voted in 2016, and the development of your arguments—a presumption that people knew more by the following years, and particularly up to 2019—19 out of 22 council areas saw a majority voting for the Brexit Party in the European election. In the Brecon and Radnorshire election, over half of those who voted, voted for strong, pro-Brexit candidates. Views haven't changed. And people were I live—Labour supporters where I live—are expressing their growing fury at the way they're being treated by this place and people in Westminster.

[Interruption.] Yes, exactly. Thank you for the intervention, but I would say, with respect, that instead of having proxy discussions about proxy elections about what we can read into what this might mean, why don't we actually have a straightforward question? I do take the point, but I think that this really needs to be done properly, and asking the direct question rather than having a proxy general election instead.

Now, ultimately, consent is about power. It involves two sides coming to an agreement when one side is in a position of power or authority and the other consents to something happening. It is predicated upon trust. Now, I would put it to this place that the trust of our constituents was gained in bad faith in 2016, whilst the consent for this particular deal has not been gained at all. And, Llywydd—Dirprwy Lywydd—that consent must be sought. MPs too and AMs, MSPs and MLAs need to understand what we are voting on before we give our consent. It is beyond regrettable that no impact assessments will be made available. How can we give consent to something without knowing what the impact of it will be on our constituents? The future welfare of our constituents cannot be held hostage to Boris Johnson's arrogance and his determination to get something through in time for an arbitrary deadline.

Llywydd, there has to be a level—. Dirprwy Lywydd, there has to be a level playing field. The Northern Ireland Assembly, under this deal, will be asked to give its active consent every four years for the set-up to continue. Our Senedd will not be granted this same opportunity, neither will the Scottish Parliament. Our consent, apparently, is not required. [Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention.

I'm very grateful to you. In the situation of an absence of consent for the nature of these developments, does she agree with me that there will be an accelerated move—? If we have a 'no deal' Brexit in 11 days or 11 months, it will accelerate the shift towards a unity referendum in the north of Ireland, to an independence referendum in Scotland, and, as we have said, there is a strong case then, and we would want to see an independence referendum here in Wales. Although we'll support the amendment, it's very important, if there's going to be informed consent, that we should be using clear language, so we should talk about an independence referendum, not a nebulous concept like sovereignty.

Yes, thank you. I would agree, and, as I've said recently in Scotland, events could overtake us very quickly. We need to be putting in place active markers and planning for an independence referendum, and that might happen far more urgently than we think, so I would certainly agree with that point.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, there is no hierarchy of consent, not unless there's somehow a hierarchy within this union and some constituent parts are favoured more than others. Now, going back to the point that I was making about Northern Ireland, I don't begrudge Stormont that opportunity to give their active consent. I simply ask that the same opportunity be given to all nations of the UK. Consent is binary: you either give informed, active consent or you do not. There is no light and shade. People need to understand what they are voting for—anything else is a failure of democracy. The phrase is often used, 'Legislate in haste, repent at leisure'. We need time to scrutinise the Bill effectively. Goodness knows what the impact will be if we do not, because we certainly can't know that without the assessments.

I'm aware of the time. The UK Government's cynicism in trying to constrain all debate about the greatest economic and constitutional change in a generation to three measly days in Westminster is contemptible. We need more time before consent can even be considered on far-reaching legislation that will rip us out of the single market, radically alter our trading arrangements with our biggest trading partner, and constrain GDP growth for generations, and our Senedd should not be rushed or sidelined in the process; we should be shown respect, because consent has to be gained.

And, finally, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The crushing irony, of course, of this Bill is that the first thing it does is to re-impose European law on this country. First, article 1, clause 1, it re-imposes European law on the whole of the United Kingdom, but does so without any opportunity for us then to influence the formation of that law. And that is what we're being told is a good deal. The good deal, of course, is what we've got at the moment, where we lead the development of European law, where we shape the development of European law, where we lead the thinking across the whole of the continent, where the United Kingdom has a respected role and voice at the top table of European policy making. From decision maker to decision taker—a broken Britain, a laughing stock across the councils of the world. That is what this Bill is delivering. But it is also the emasculation of our democracy Bill, the emasculation of our democratic institutions.

One of the most disturbing parts of debate that we're hearing, that we're seeing taking place at the moment, is not the debate that says, 'Are you right or is somebody else right?', not an argument and a debate and a discussion about the facts, but the abuse that many of us receive, and that I am receiving on social media at the moment—that I no longer have a right to a view, that I no longer have an opportunity to argue the case that I was elected to argue, that I no longer have the opportunity to stand here or elsewhere and argue for that which I believe. That is no democracy—that is no democracy. And self-government is not about saying, 'Here's a Bill—you've got three days, take it or leave it'. That's not democracy either. That's not the democracy that many of us understand. The will of the people has become sovereign, but who are the arbitrators of that will? We're told that they're not the people who are elected by those people, of course; they're the hedge fund managers, the rich and the powerful, the newspaper proprietors, the offshore bankers. All of them have one thing in common, they try to avoid paying UK tax, and then they tell us that it is they who know what the will of the people is, not the people who are elected by the population of this country, and not the people who serve the people of this country—judges are 'enemies of the people'; we have 'Parliament against the people'. This is not democracy. This is the emasculation of British democracy.

And to say to the UK Parliament that you have three days to read through a Bill of 122 pages—and David Melding does his best to make the case for this rotten old Government, but I have to say to him, the bundle of papers available that you would need to understand to properly scrutinise this Bill runs to over 1,000 pages, and that doesn't include, of course, the economic impact analysis, which hasn't been done, and neither does it include the Act of last year, the withdrawal Act, that this Bill seeks to amend. Now, the former leader of the Welsh Conservatives didn't even realise that Act existed, so, in terms of arguing the case that we need more time for scrutiny, I'm not convinced that the Conservatives are on very firm ground.

But even the opportunity to read through it immediately tells us there are real dangers with this Bill. Clause 30 is very clear—only a Minister of the Crown can apply for an extension of a transition period. Has the Government learnt nothing from the last few months? It creates the opportunity to deliver a hard Brexit by the back door. It prevents people arguing for a different sort of Brexit. It prevents people arguing for a further extension, if that is needed. What it does is deliver something by the back door—it's typical Boris Johnson. And it does so without allowing us a proper say over future relationships. Clause 31 provides very little oversight of future negotiations by the UK Parliament and none whatsoever by this Parliament. After an initial statement of objectives a Minister of the Crown 'may, at any time' make a future statement. 'May, at any time'—no opportunity in this Bill to hold the Government to account. None whatsoever. But this place, this Parliament, will only receive a report after the event. Now, those of us who sit on the external affairs committee know—and we've seen this in our debates and discussions on international treaties—that, if you want to influence the shape of a negotiation, you do so at the beginning of that negotiation and not at the end of the negotiation, yet this Parliament is given no opportunity at all to influence the shape of those negotiations—no role for Wales, no role for this Parliament, no role for the Welsh Government, and then we are lectured on democracy. We've already heard on the situation in Northern Ireland, and I will say very seriously to those Labour MPs who tonight are trusting Boris Johnson on workers' rights, perhaps they need to go to Strangers' and have a chat with the DUP and see how far the promises of Boris Johnson actually reach, and see how far Boris Johnson can be trusted, because, when he stood up this afternoon in the House of Commons and said 'yes' time and time again to Labour MPs asking for assurances, you could see the DUP sitting there saying, 'Yes, we heard the same promises ourselves'.

Finally, clause 22 enables Ministers to make any regulations they choose—any they choose—on the matter of Northern Ireland, again by regulation, again beyond the scrutiny of Parliament. That asks and begs a question about the place of Wales. Clause 36 is an eccentric clause to find in any piece of legislation, apparently drafted by Bill Cash in order to provide him with some dubious pleasure. But let me say this—let me say this—we have changed radically the governance of these islands, and we have done so with the consent of the people. We have done so at all times in step with a developing constitution. Clause 36 has the power to end the United Kingdom because, when it, when the UK Parliament, tries to drive a coach and horses through the new democracies of Britain, the people of Britain will say, 'That's not what we want', and then it is for us, the elected representatives of the people of Wales, to determine what we wish to do about that. Last week—

Can we wind up, please?

—we debated and discussed—. I will bring my comments to a close. The First Minister outlined an exciting and radical view of the future of Britain. My real fear is a Bill that starts out as the emasculation of democracy Bill will end up with the abolition of the United Kingdom Act. 

Can I now call the First Minister to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I won't attempt to respond individually to all the many points that have been made, but I will try and address a number of the key themes that I think we've heard in the debate. So, a theme running from Paul Davies's initial contribution right through the afternoon has been that of timing. What is so magic about 31 October? What is it that means that this Bill has to be concluded at such a breakneck speed? Well, I've heard people say, 'Well, other pieces of legislation have been done quickly too.' It's true. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed through Parliament in just a couple of days, and look what a success that turned out to be. But surely—surely—there is an issue here of magnitude. It's one thing to take a small Bill through this legislature or another at speed, absolutely something different to set in stone relationships that will last for generations against an entirely artificial deadline that the Prime Minister has invented for himself.

This afternoon, in the House of Commons, Rory Stewart said that this Bill will be poisoned with the stain of illegitimacy, because it will not have had the consideration, the proper chance for people to say what they want to say, to read it in the detail that it deserves, because of this timetable. Labour whips in the House of Commons have written this afternoon, in an unusual step, a public letter to the business managers of the Government offering to discuss a timetable—a timetable that would allow the Bill to proceed, but would allow it to happen in an orderly fashion, in which the rights of this place and the Scottish Parliament, as well as the rights of Parliament, can be respected. And of every argument that I've heard this afternoon on that side of the debate it seems to me to be the argument that is convincing. 

We've heard quite a bit this afternoon, Dirprwy Lywydd, about the undying mandate of 2016—a mummified mandate, the mandate that can never be undone. And yet, as was said by a series of people around the Chamber—and Rhun ap Iorwerth, I thought, put it very well—so much has happened since then, so many people whose futures are now at stake want to have the chance to have their say on this deal. Back in 2016, nobody knew the deal that we would leave the European Union with. Now we do, now people deserve a chance to say whether this is what they thought they were voting for. And if it is, and if that's what people decide, then I'm with other people: if that's what people decide, that will be it. That will be the end of this argument, because then, this time, people know what they are buying. Last time, they knew nothing. They saw a bus plastered with the lies that were the stock in trade of the 'leave' campaign. This time, they will not be able to do that, because there is a deal. There is a deal that people will be able to see, given enough time to be able to read it. And that's why this argument about 'We voted once and that's the end of democracy' simply does not run. 

And one of the reasons why it doesn't run is because of the theme—[Interruption.] Sorry. 

Thank you, First Minister. I'm grateful for your taking an intervention. Do you think that the reason why there are so many Brexiteers in this Chamber who are against the idea of a second referendum and allowing people to have a say is that the result would be a different one this time around, and that's what they're afraid of?

Well, I'd put it differently, agreeing with the point that Carwyn Jones has made. I'd put it in this way: what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? Time after time they pop up around this Chamber telling us that this is the best deal we'll ever see. And if it is, what is there to be afraid of—

Andrew R.T. Davies rose—

Can we just listen to the First Minister, please?

—in asking the electorate if they agree with them? I will take the risk of going out there and arguing for what I believe in; they're not prepared to take the risk to do that themselves. And one of the reasons—[Interruption.] No, I'm trying to make a bit of progress.

One of the reasons why this doesn't work is because of another great theme in this debate, that of trust. Adam Price identified it early on as fundamental to the way that the Brexit debate has been conducted. David Rees came back to it later on in the debate. You could not trust this Prime Minister. You could not trust him. Look at his record.

Mandy Jones, in a contribution that defied parody, asked a Welsh Assembly, 'Why not trust the Tories? Why not trust the Tories here in Wales?' After all the years of our experience. Well, we don't trust the Tories, and we don't trust them for every single good reason that they simply are not to be trusted. We know it from our history and we know it again today.

Let me get on, Dirprwy Lywydd, to a number of the issues of substance, the substance of the deal itself. It is, as Adam Price said, a hardline Brexit deal. Its substance will not work for Wales. We were prepared—our party, Plaid Cymru—to put a form of leaving the European Union that would have left the political arrangements of the European Union while protecting the economy of Wales, and we tried—my goodness, did we not try—to persuade the UK Government to take that idea seriously. Mrs May—

Thank you for taking the intervention. To show that we were trying to get a good deal for Wales, would you agree that when Dominic Raab said a few days ago that this was a cracking deal for Northern Ireland because it retains seamless access to the single market, that betrays somewhat what's going on here?  

Well, I think that is a very insightful remark. It reminds me that Mrs May's deal in her Chequers White Paper would have had dynamic regulatory alignment for goods and agrifood products, so we would have had access to the single market, and it had a customs arrangement in it. It wasn't us who walked away from Mrs May's deal; it was the then Foreign Secretary who walked away from that deal. It was Dominic Raab who refused to support that deal. It wasn't people on this side of the Chamber who scuppered Mrs May. It was people behind her and on her own side. As a result, we have this hardline Brexit. We will not support it for all the reasons you've heard: the impact on Holyhead, the impact on the peace process, the impact on workers' rights, the fact that there is a Brexit trapdoor bolted in to the deal that the Prime Minister has done. 

Darren Millar said, misunderstanding this, as other points, that the Brexit trapdoor was there at the insistence of the European Union. It's absolutely not the case at all. The Prime Minister is absolutely able to put a clause into his Bill that says, 'At the end of the transition period, it will be Parliament that decides whether or not'—not the Government untrammelled by any parliamentary oversight. After all, the Parliaments of Europe will all have a vote on this, but apparently it's not good enough for the 'take back controllers' of the Conservative Party.

And at stake here as well is the future of the United Kingdom, as we have heard. If this Assembly does decide not to give its consent, I hope that Members on the Conservative benches here will say to their Government just how serious it will be if they decide to use the Sewel convention to override the views of this National Assembly. I think sometimes that the members of the Conservative Government have no interest at all in the future of the United Kingdom, that they're prepared to act in ways that are utterly careless of its integrity. And there is something fundamentally important at stake here, and they should use the influence they have, the contacts that they have, to make sure that they understand that. 

To end, Dirprwy Lywydd, let me end with a point that Delyth Jewell made towards the end of the debate, because this is all about consent. This is all about consent. And the document that we debated here last week—the 20 points—makes it clear that, in our view, this is a United Kingdom that can only operate on the basis of consent, a voluntary union of four nations where we choose to act together, and consent is what that process is all about. That's why we have a legislative consent process, and that legislative consent process needs to be given the time it needs, it needs to be treated with the respect that it deserves, and today's debate is the start, not the end, of that process. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.