English: Well, Llywydd, I think I heard two questions in that. The first question was: why don't I cheer up? And I hope I set out for you all the reasons why a sensible person will not be approaching this autumn in a spirit of empty optimism. The second question was about a second referendum. I've said plainly that my own belief is that, if you have a deadlocked House of Commons, you need a new House of Commons, through a general election. As I understand it, to talk of a second referendum is not about reversing the first referendum, although I think we can speculate - and it would not be unfair of us to speculate - that, had the Member found himself on the losing side of the last referendum, by a very narrow majority, he would not be sitting there, saying, 'Oh, well, the British people have spoken, I will never ask that question again.' But, of course, it's apparently impossible for people on the other side to ask the same question again. The question of a second referendum is not on whether to leave the European Union - it's whether the terms of the deal negotiated are satisfactory to people. I think that's a different question, and I think it's not improper for people to think that that is the right way to ask people, as to whether or not, having decided to leave the European Union - is this what you thought it would mean and is this what you thought you were voting for? That's not an unfair question to ask people. If I buy a vacuum cleaner in a shop today, I have 28 days to take it back to the shop if it doesn't do the job that I thought it was going to do when I bought it. And if I can do that for a vacuum cleaner, then asking people, 'Having made the decision to leave the European Union, is this particular deal what you think you were voting for?' - I don't think it's right simply just to dismiss that. In amongst everything else, Llywydd, I think you hear two or three of the emerging narratives of those people who tried to persuade people in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. When it all goes as badly wrong as some of us fear that it might, the accusations will be of betrayal at home and intransigence abroad. Everything would have been fine if it wasn't for the fact that those people in charge of it - David Davis, Boris Johnson, those well-known people, determined to stay in the European Union - . If it hadn't been for them, everything would have been fine. And if it isn't for them, it's all the fault of foreigners. We heard that emerging clear as you like this afternoon. Then we hear, on the one hand, of course it will be fine anyway. Apparently, driving licences will work, although we're told they won't if we have a no-Brexit. I wonder if the Member had spotted today, in his talk of German car manufacturers, that BMW has said that it will shut its main British manufacturing factory for several weeks immediately after 29 March next year. It's a decision they've already taken, because they fear that the channel tunnel will be blocked for two weeks - that they will not be able to move parts from one part of the European Union to another. Far from German car manufacturers being in favour of new free trade deals with the United Kingdom, they are taking steps now to deal with the consequences of the course of action that he and his party have advocated. And then we hear, if it's not going to be fine straight away, then don't worry - in the longer run, it will all be fine. Well, I wonder whether people who heard messages during the referendum campaign, and saw busses going up and down their streets with large sums of money advertised on the side of them, realised that this wasn't going to happen as a result of leaving the European Union - it was as a result of of some long-distant future when a period of immiseration had been survived and everything would be fine for those who were left. Really, it doesn't stack up. The Member knows it doesn't stack up, but he makes his normal attempt to persuade us of it this afternoon.
Welsh: Wel, Llywydd, rwy'n credu y clywais ddau gwestiwn yn y fan yna. Y cwestiwn cyntaf oedd: pam na allaf i fod yn fwy siriol? Ac rwy'n gobeithio imi egluro'r holl resymau pam na fyddai person synhwyrol yn dynesu at yr hydref hwn mewn ysbryd o obaith gwag. Roedd yr ail gwestiwn am ail refferendwm. Rwyf wedi dweud yn glir mai fy nghred fy hun yw, os yw Tŷ'r Cyffredin yn analluog i gydweld, mae angen Tŷ Cyffredin newydd, drwy etholiad cyffredinol. Fel rwy'n deall pethau, nid yw sôn am ail refferendwm yn golygu gwrthdroi'r refferendwm cyntaf, er y credaf y gallem ni ddyfalu - ac ni fyddai'n annheg inni ddyfalu - pe canfu'r Aelod ei hun ar yr ochr a gollodd y refferendwm diwethaf, o fwyafrif bach iawn, na fyddai yn eistedd yn y fan yna yn dweud, 'O, wel, mae pobl Prydain wedi lleisio eu barn, wnaf i fyth ofyn y cwestiwn yna eto.' Ond, wrth gwrs, ymddengys ei bod hi'n amhosib i bobl ar yr ochr arall ofyn yr un cwestiwn eto. Nid yw'r cwestiwn o ail refferendwm ynglŷn ag a ddylid gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd - mae ynglŷn ag a yw telerau'r fargen a negodwyd yn foddhaol i'r bobl. Rwy'n credu fod hynny'n gwestiwn gwahanol, ac nid wyf i'n credu ei bod hi'n amhriodol i bobl feddwl mai dyna'r ffordd gywir i ofyn i bobl, pa un ai ynteu peidio, ar ôl penderfynu gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd - ai dyma'r hyn yr oeddech chi'n credu y byddai hynny yn ei olygu ac ai dyma'r hyn yr oeddech chi'n credu eich bod yn pleidleisio drosto? Nid yw hynny'n gwestiwn annheg i ofyn i bobl. Os wyf yn prynu sugnydd llwch mewn siop heddiw, mae gennyf 28 diwrnod i'w ddychwelyd i'r siop os nad yw'n gwneud y gwaith y credais y byddai'n ei wneud pan brynais ef. Ac os gallaf wneud hynny gyda sugnydd llwch, yna mae gofyn i bobl, 'wedi gwneud y penderfyniad i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, ai'r fargen benodol hon yw'r hyn yr oeddech chi'n credu yr oeddech chi'n pleidleisio o'i blaid?' - Nid wyf i'n credu ei bod hi'n briodol i ddiystyru hynny. Ymhlith popeth arall, Llywydd, rwy'n credu y clywch chi'r bobl hynny sy'n ceisio argyhoeddi pobl yn y Deyrnas Unedig i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn sôn am ddau neu dri pheth. Pan fydd pethau'n mynd o chwith cymaint ag y mae rhai ohonom ni yn ofni y gallai, cawn gyhuddiadau o frad gartref ac anhyblygrwydd d ramor. Byddai popeth wedi bod yn iawn oni bai am y ffaith bod y bobl hynny sy'n gyfrifol amdano - David Davis, Boris Johnson, y bobl adnabyddus hynny, oedd yn benderfynol o aros yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd - . Oni bai amdanyn nhw, byddai popeth wedi bod yn iawn. Ac os nad yw pethau'n iawn iddyn nhw, mae'r holl fai ar y tramorwyr. Clywsom hynny'n dod i'r amlwg yn glir iawn y prynhawn yma. Yna rydym ni'n clywed, ar y naill law, wrth gwrs, bydd popeth yn iawn beth bynnag. Mae'n debyg, bydd modd defnyddio trwyddedau gyrru, er y dywedir wrthym ni na fydd modd gwneud hynny os na chawn ni gytundeb ynglŷn â Brexit. Tybed a sylwodd yr Aelod heddiw, wrth sôn am wneuthurwyr ceir yr Almaen, bod BMW wedi dweud y byddan nhw'n cau eu prif ffatri gweithgynhyrchu ym Mhrydain am sawl wythnos yn union ar ôl 29 Mawrth y flwyddyn nesaf. Mae'n benderfyniad y maen nhw wedi ei wneud eisoes, oherwydd maen nhw'n ofni y bydd tagfeydd yn nhwnnel y Sianel am bythefnos - na fyddan nhw'n gallu symud rhannau o un rhan o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd i un arall. Yn hytrach na bod gwneuthurwyr ceir yr Almaen o blaid cytundebau masnach rydd newydd gyda'r Deyrnas Unedig, maen nhw wrthi ar hyn o bryd yn ymdopi â chanlyniadau'r camau gweithredu a argymhellodd ef a'i blaid. Ac yna rydym ni'n clywed, peidiwch â phoeni os na fydd popeth yn dda ar unwaith - yn y pen draw, bydd popeth yn iawn. Wel, tybed a sylweddolodd pobl a glywodd negeseuon yn ystod ymgyrch y refferendwm, ac a welodd fysiau a mynd i fyny ac i lawr eu strydoedd â symiau mawr o arian wedi eu hysbysebu ar eu hochrau, nad oedd hyn yn mynd i ddigwydd o ganlyniad i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd - roedd yn ganlyniad rhyw ddyfodol pell ar ôl goroesi cyfnod o ddigalondid ac y byddai popeth yn iawn i'r rhai a oedd yn weddill. I ddweud y gwir, nid yw hynny'n dal dŵr. Mae'r Aelod yn gwybod nad yw hynny'n dal dŵr, ond mae'n gwneud ei ymgais arferol i'n hargyhoeddi ni o hynny y prynhawn yma.