At the start of this debate, the First Minister said we would undoubtedly hear our opponents claim that the decision to recommend voting down the legislative consent motion was rooted in our objections to the withdrawal deal itself, and I'm glad that Mark Reckless and Neil Hamilton didn't disappoint in that regard in what must be an ongoing and, I think, increasingly desperate search for relevance that Mandy Jones, in giving us a countdown to Brexit, reminded us is thankfully now limited. But let me say quite honestly that these decisions are always important decisions for a Government that wants to see a more effective union.

For 20 years, we and successive UK Governments, actually, have tried hard to avoid a situation where the Sewel convention is breached, because though the Supreme Court has ruled it is not justiciable, it is, as Mick Antoniw in his contribution outlined, of huge significance. Conventions in an unwritten constitution should matter. It is convention that the sovereign does not refuse to sign Acts of Parliament duly passed by both Houses; no statute or court can't force her to do that. It's convention that the House of Lords does not seek to block legislation that has featured in a winning party's election manifesto.

So, we have obviously then thought long and hard before advising the Senedd to deny consent. Contrary to the argument of the leader of the opposition, this is not about blocking Brexit or sulking, because the general election has undoubtedly given the UK Government a mandate to negotiate a relationship with the EU based on the free trade agreement they've outlined. As our document on future negotiations and priorities for Wales sets out, though we don't think that is in the best interests of Wales, we accept that that is the starting point for the discussions, and we set out the direction that we feel they need to take.

Our objections to the Bill are based on what it threatens to do to the devolution settlement, and it is right for us to stand up for that settlement. As Alun Davies said in his contribution, 'The alternative doesn't sound like democracy to me', and I think he's right in that. I refute David Melding's argument that the reasons given are not matters of constitutional principle, and I would attach less weight perhaps than I would normally to his important contributions in this sort of debate, because I think he did fail to grapple with the point that Carwyn Jones made so eloquently about the emblematic impact of clause 38, which asserts a form of parliamentary sovereignty that we in this place should not be quick to support, because it fundamentally misunderstands the changed constitution of Wales and of the United Kingdom in a way that I hope Members in this Chamber would recognise.

At the centre of our argument is the fact that, under the Government of Wales Act, the UK Government can ultimately seek to compel this Senedd to put in place measures to implement international obligations that, effectively, we don't agree with and it can block the Senedd from legislating in a way that it believes right and which is otherwise within—