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.