Not for the first time, I’m struggling to make any sort of sense out of a statement by the First Minister on Brexit. What seems indisputable is that he has said all of the following:
a. all four of the UK's parliaments and assemblies should have to "agree to any deal the UK government comes to"
b. he could not "envisage consent being given by Wales" [without access to the single market]
c. he "never called for a veto" [for the Assembly]
Whilst all three of these statements make some sort of sense individually, when put together they are self-evidently contradictory - unless…
The one explanation that does make sense is if it were to be a requirement that the Assembly has to agree the deal, but with the condition that the Assembly has no right not to agree it. It’s just a question of placing the correct interpretation on the words ‘the Assembly should have to agree’; it’s not a pre-condition for the outcome being accepted, it’s a statement of fact about the option being given to the Assembly. It’s democracy, Henry Ford style: ‘You can vote however you like, as long as you vote the way Westminster tells you to vote’.The sad thing is that it seems to fit quite well with the Labour Party’s notion of what home rule should look like.