English: I thank the Member for a number of questions. I hope I manage to do justice to all of them. Just firstly in relation to the point that she opened with, around the statutory protection for devolved administrations in negotiations, she'll know from previous statements that I've made here, and the First Minister has made, that it's been a consistent theme of the Welsh Government's engagement with the UK Government in relation to this that we feel that, on the ongoing negotiations into the future, the Welsh Government, and the Scottish Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive, have a fundamental role to play. The reference I made in my speech was a letter I sent in response to comments made by the Prime Minister at the despatch box on Friday, where she committed to giving a statutory footing to the negotiations of the political declaration itself - not the future negotiations more broadly. The Member will know that, about a week or 10 days ago, I made a statement, and wrote to David Lidington and Stephen Barclay in the UK Government, proposing language that could be used by way of amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill, which would do that job, which would provide Parliament with oversight, but also provide a role for the devolved institutions in the reform of the declaration itself. Having heard the Prime Minister and Attorney General give a commitment to some of that, I felt it was important to seek a commitment to the balance of it, which is the reason that I wrote. She refers to the inter-governmental agreement. She will perhaps recall that the purpose of the inter-governmental agreement was indeed to secure a significant number of statutory concessions. And it is that inter-governmental agreement that has enabled frameworks to be developed between the administrations in the UK, on a way that has, by and large, been very productive. She - and her colleagues, perhaps, prior to her joining the house - routinely used to say that it was a mechanism for taking powers away. I have yet to hear a single power enumerated in that list of powers taken away; the very simple reason for that is because there aren't any. In relation to the votes in the House of Commons last night, I was hoping to have made it clear in my statement that the Clarke amendment, when taken together with other commitments that the Prime Minister has subsequently made, would need to be together taken into account in a reformed political declaration. I welcome the tone with which her parliamentary colleague last night engaged in the votes around this, and made a particular point of advocating 'Securing Wales' Future' as principles that Plaid Cymru still endorse, and I welcome that continued commitment, even in the House of Commons. She mentioned the comments made by Keir Starmer around the interpretation of the European Court of Justice's decision in Wightman, which is the relevant case here. The judgment is clear: that the revocation needs to be unequivocal and unconditional, and that it isn't a mechanism by which a member state can simply pause the article 50 process. And the reason for that is obvious, isn't it? There is a mechanism in the legislation that gives other member states the power to consent or not. If a member could simply exercise that right independently, that would drive a coach and horses through other member states' rights. So, it's not surprising that that is the conclusion of the court. And I will simply echo, if I may, the comments the First Minister made earlier in the Chamber: this is not the time at which a decision of such constitutional magnitude can possibly be made. In the final analysis, there may be a different conclusion around that, but at this point in time, we haven't reached that moment of decision where the alternatives are revocation or no deal.
Welsh: Diolch i'r Aelod am nifer o gwestiynau. Rwy'n gobeithio y llwyddaf i wneud cyfiawnder â phob un ohonyn nhw. Yn gyntaf am ei sylw agoriadol, ynghylch yr amddiffyniad statudol ar gyfer gweinyddiaethau datganoledig yn y trafodaethau, bydd hi'n gwybod o ddatganiadau blaenorol yr wyf i wedi eu gwneud yn y fan yma, ac y mae Prif Weinidog Cymru wedi eu gwneud, y bu hyn yn thema gyson o drafodaethau Llywodraeth Cymru â Llywodraeth y DU mewn perthynas â hyn, sef ein bod yn teimlo, o ran y trafodaethau sy'n mynd rhagddyn nhw ynghylch y dyfodol, fod gan Lywodraeth Cymru, a Llywodraeth yr Alban a Gweithrediaeth Gogledd Iwerddon, swyddogaeth hanfodol. Roedd y cyfeiriad a wnes yn fy araith yn llythyr a anfonais mewn ymateb i sylwadau a wnaed gan Brif Weinidog y DU yn y blwch anfon ddydd Gwener, lle ymrwymodd i roi sail statudol i negodiadau'r datganiad gwleidyddol ei hun - nid negodiadau'r dyfodol yn fwy cyffredinol. Bydd yr Aelod yn gwybod, wythnos neu 10 diwrnod yn ôl, y gwnes i ddatganiad, ac ysgrifennu at David Lidington a Stephen Barclay yn Llywodraeth y DU, yn cynnig geiriad y gellid ei ddefnyddio o ran Bil diwygio'r cytundeb ymadael, a fyddai'n gwneud y gwaith hwnnw, a fyddai'n rhoi modd i'r Senedd oruchwylio, ond a fyddai hefyd yn rhoi swyddogaeth i'r sefydliadau datganoledig yn y gwaith o ddiwygio'r datganiad ei hun. Ar ôl clywed Prif Weinidog y DU a'r Twrnai Cyffredinol yn ymrwymo i rywfaint o hynny, roeddwn yn teimlo ei bod hi'n bwysig ceisio cael ymrwymiad ynglŷn â chydbwysedd hynny, a dyna'r rheswm yr ysgrifennais. Mae hi'n cyfeirio at y cytundeb rhynglywodraethol. Bydd hi'n cofio efallai mai diben y cytundeb rhynglywodraethol yn wir oedd sicrhau nifer sylweddol o gonsesiynau statudol. A'r cytundeb rhynglywodraethol hwnnw sydd wedi galluogi datblygu fframweithiau rhwng y gweinyddiaethau yn y DU, mewn ffordd sydd, ar y cyfan, wedi bod yn gynhyrchiol iawn. Roedd hi - a'i chyd-Aelodau, efallai, cyn iddi ymuno â'r tŷ - yn arfer dweud yn gyson ei fod yn fecanwaith ar gyfer dwyn pwerau ymaith. Rwyf eto i glywed am un pŵer ar y rhestr honno o bwerau a ddygwyd ymaith; y rheswm syml iawn am hynny yw oherwydd nad oes unrhyw un. O ran y pleidleisiau yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin neithiwr, roeddwn yn gobeithio fy mod i wedi ei gwneud hi'n glir yn fy natganiad y byddai gwelliant Clarke, o'i ystyried ynghyd ag ymrwymiadau eraill a wnaeth Prif Weinidog y DU yn dilyn hynny, y byddai angen eu hystyried gyda'i gilydd mewn datganiad gwleidyddol diwygiedig. Rwy'n croesawu sut yr aeth ei chyd-Aelod Seneddol neithiwr ati yn y pleidleisiau hyn, ac fel yr aeth ati'n arbennig i eirioli dros 'Diogelu Dyfodol Cymru' fel egwyddorion y mae Plaid Cymru yn eu cymeradwyo o hyd, ac rwy'n croesawu'r ymrwymiad parhaus hwnnw, hyd yn oed yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin. Soniodd am y sylwadau a wnaed gan Keir Starmer ynghylch y dehongliad o benderfyniad Llys Cyfiawnder Ewrop yn achos Wightman, sef yr achos perthnasol yn hyn o beth. Mae'r dyfarniad yn glir: bod angen i'r dirymu fod yn ddiamwys ac yn ddiamod, ac nad yw'n fecanwaith y gall aelod-wladwriaeth ei ddefnyddio dim ond er mwyn gohirio proses erthygl 50. Ac mae'r rheswm am hynny yn amlwg, onid yw? Mae yna fecanwaith yn y ddeddfwriaeth sy'n rhoi'r pŵer i aelod-wladwriaethau eraill gydsynio neu beidio. Pe gallai aelod arfer yr hawl honno'n annibynnol, byddai hynny'n tanseilio hawliau aelod-wladwriaethau eraill. Felly, nid yw'n syndod mai dyna gasgliad y llys. Ac fe wnaf adleisio, os caf i, sylwadau Prif Weinidog Cymru yn gynharach yn y Siambr: nid dyma'r amser y mae modd mewn difrif gwneud penderfyniad sydd â goblygiadau cyfansoddiadol mor sylweddol. Yn y pen draw, efallai bod casgliad gwahanol ynghylch hynny, ond ar hyn o bryd, nid ydym ni wedi cyrraedd yr eiliad honno o benderfynu lle mai'r dewisiadau eraill yw dirymu neu ddim cytundeb.