My right hon. Friend is right. There is agreement across leave and remain, and I hope that this is an issue that can unite the House and that the Government will reconsider. Last Thursday, I was in Berlin discussing Brexit with a German Government Minister, and he asked me what I thought the Government would do next on customs and trade. It was hard enough to talk about-would it be max fac, buffer zones, double-hatted regulations, backstops, front-stops, any possible customs arrangement or partnership, and so on? What was even more embarrassing, however, was that, even as we were speaking, I had to admit that I did not know whether by the end of the meeting the Brexit Secretary would still be in place-he was in and out of No. 10, apparently about to resign-and the Foreign Secretary was promising meltdown and telling us all, “Don't panic!â€. We are embarrassing ourselves across the world with this “Dad's Armyâ€ version of Brexit. We are in danger of turning ourselves into a national joke by not facing up to the real issues. The Government say they do not agree with the Lords amendments on the customs union and the EEA, but we still do not know what they want instead. As others have said, the new customs arrangements amendment is a further fudge that just kicks the can down the road again, even though the road is running out. Ministers should accept that, although they have been wrestling with this issue and with each other for 18 months, none of their customs options works, either for Northern Ireland or, crucially, for manufacturing industry, which is the spine of our economy. The technological max fac will not be ready for years; it does not solve the problem of rules of origin checks, nor can it avoid camera infrastructure at the Northern Ireland border. It will leave businesses with what Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs now says could be a £20 billion annual bill for the bureaucracy involved in explaining where all the ingredients and components come from in a fully integrated supply chain.