English: May I thank the Minister for his statement? When I saw the title 'legislation related to leaving the EU', I had assumed it would focus on the flow of statutory instruments and the approach we were taking to those, so I particularly thank him for the last two paragraphs that do address that issue. And if I may take into account the tone we had from Darren Millar in his response - I recall a number of similar contributions in the past with a very different tone. But in light of that, can I reference what the Minister says about the Sewel convention? He says this could have developed into a major constitutional crisis threatening the foundations of devolution, and then references a number of things that the UK Government has done or implied that lead to this not being that. But there's another side to that, and I think that reflects the position of Welsh Government who are looking to reduce the temperature on this and find common ground with UK Government and interpret what they're doing in such a way as to minimise the extent to which they see that as a breach, and I think that is a sensible and an appropriate way of moving forward and putting this behind them. I do however think that the precedent of that breach of Sewel is still there, and the Minister references three or four documents or speeches from UK Government that means that precedent counts for less in his mind than might otherwise be the case. May I raise one on the other side, and that relates to the comments the Minister makes about our decision here in the Senedd mirroring similar votes in the Northern Ireland and Scottish Parliaments, and the reference to UK Government overriding the views of the three legislatures? Of course, the two other legislatures were expressing the views and representing their electorates who had voted remain. Here, the people of Wales voted to leave, yet, again, with this legislative consent motion, we saw actions that were at least open to the interpretation of being of a piece with three and a half years of seeking to use such powers as we have to impede Brexit. And the Minister refers to Welsh Government's capacity to influence the forthcoming negotiations. Isn't the key thing that reduces that capacity the fact that Welsh Government, along with Plaid Cymru, adopted a Brexit-in-name-only policy, and then when ultimately Theresa May offered them basically that, and including a customs union - and the Minister said he was happy with the withdrawal agreement and perhaps just a few points about the political declaration - when it came to the crunch, Welsh Government changed its mind, and supported what Welsh Labour and UK Labour did in not standing by that BRINO policy - with the honourable exception, perhaps, of Stephen Kinnock and one or two others - but instead saying, 'Well, we did say that before, but we're not going to stick to that, and we would prefer to have a second referendum and gamble on blocking Brexit altogether, notwithstanding that we said we would respect the referendum before'? Is that not why you do not have the purchase you would wish as UK Government leads these trade negotiations with a majority of 80? Finally, may I speak about what the Minister says about keeping pace with EU legislation? He seems to talk as if there is the prospect of dynamic alignment with EU standards and regulations through a trade treaty. May I reinforce with him, or at least emphasise the stated position of UK Government, that there will be no such dynamic alignment. We trust they will keep to their promises. If they do, surely there will be no requirement for us to be keeping pace with EU legislation in this way, and if, as he says, there are other available means of enabling Wales to keep pace when we consider it necessary, doesn't that imply that in many areas we will be diverging from UK legislation applicable in England, in a way that will make business in Wales more difficult and less attractive?
Welsh: A gaf i ddiolch i'r Gweinidog am ei ddatganiad? Pan welais y teitl 'deddfwriaeth yn ymwneud ag ymadael â'r UE', roeddwn wedi tybio y byddai'n canolbwyntio ar lif offerynnau statudol a'r dull gweithredu yr oeddem ni'n ei ddilyn ar gyfer y rheini, felly hoffwn ddiolch yn arbennig iddo am y ddau baragraff olaf sy'n ymdrin â'r mater hwnnw. Ac os caf ystyried y tôn a gawsom gan Darren Millar yn ei ymateb - rwy'n cofio nifer o gyfraniadau tebyg yn y gorffennol â thôn wahanol iawn. Ond yng ngoleuni hynny, a gaf i gyfeirio at yr hyn y mae'r Gweinidog yn ei ddweud am Gonfensiwn Sewel? Mae'n dweud y gallai hyn fod wedi datblygu'n argyfwng cyfansoddiadol mawr sy'n bygwth sylfeini datganoli, ac yna mae'n cyfeirio at nifer o bethau y mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi eu gwneud neu wedi awgrymu nad yw hyn yn arwain at y llall. Ond mae ochr arall i hynny, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n adlewyrchu sefyllfa Llywodraeth Cymru sy'n ceisio lleihau'r tymheredd ar hyn a dod o hyd i dir cyffredin gyda Llywodraeth y DU a dehongli'r hyn y maen nhw yn ei wneud mewn modd sy'n lleihau'r graddau y maen nhw yn ystyried hynny yn doriad, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n ffordd gall a phriodol o symud ymlaen a rhoi hyn y tu ôl iddyn nhw. Rwy'n credu, fodd bynnag, fod cynsail y toriad hwnnw i Sewel yn dal i fod yno, ac mae'r Gweinidog yn cyfeirio at dair neu bedair dogfen neu areithiau gan Lywodraeth y DU sy'n golygu bod cynsail yn cyfrif am lai yn ei feddwl ef nag a fyddai fel arall yn wir. A gaf i godi un ar yr ochr arall, ac mae hynny'n ymwneud â'r sylwadau y mae'r Gweinidog yn eu gwneud am ein penderfyniad ni yma yn y Senedd yn adlewyrchu pleidleisiau tebyg yn senedd Gogledd Iwerddon a senedd yr Alban, a'r cyfeiriad at Lywodraeth y DU yn anwybyddu barn y tair Deddfwrfa? Wrth gwrs, roedd y ddwy ddeddfwrfa arall yn mynegi barn ac yn cynrychioli eu hetholwyr a oedd wedi pleidleisio i aros. Yn y fan yma, pleidleisiodd pobl Cymru i ymadael, ac eto, unwaith eto, gyda'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol hwn, gwelsom gamau gweithredu a oedd o leiaf yn agored i'r dehongliad o fod yn ddarn â thair blynedd a hanner o geisio defnyddio pwerau o'r fath sydd gennym i rwystro Brexit. Ac mae'r Gweinidog yn cyfeirio at gapasiti Llywodraeth Cymru i ddylanwadu ar y trafodaethau sydd ar y gweill. Onid y peth allweddol sy'n lleihau'r gallu hwnnw yw'r ffaith fod Llywodraeth Cymru, ynghyd â Phlaid Cymru, wedi mabwysiadu polisi Brexit mewn enw yn unig, ac wedyn pan wnaeth Theresa May, yn y pen draw, gynnig hynny iddyn nhw yn y bôn, gan gynnwys Undeb Tollau - a dywedodd y Gweinidog ei fod yn hapus â'r cytundeb ymadael ac efallai dim ond ychydig o bwyntiau am y datganiad gwleidyddol - pan ddaeth i'r pen, newidiodd Llywodraeth Cymru ei meddwl, a chefnogi'r hyn a wnaeth Llafur Cymru a Llafur y DU a pheidio â chefnogi'r polisi BRINO hwnnw - gydag eithriad clodwiw, efallai, Stephen Kinnock ac un neu ddau arall - ond yn hytrach yn dweud, 'Wel, fe wnaethom ni ddweud hynny o'r blaen, ond nid ydym ni'n mynd i lynu at hynny, a byddai'n well gennym ni gael ail refferendwm a gamblo ar atal Brexit yn gyfan gwbl, er ein bod ni wedi dweud y byddem yn parchu'r refferendwm yn flaenorol'? Onid dyna pam nad oes gennych chi'r dylanwad y byddech chi'n dymuno ei gael wrth i Lywodraeth y DU arwain y trafodaethau masnach hyn gyda mwyafrif o 80? Yn olaf, a gaf i sôn am yr hyn y mae'r Gweinidog yn ei ddweud am gadw'n gyfredol â deddfwriaeth yr UE? Ymddengys ei fod yn siarad fel pe byddai gobaith am gyfochri dynamig â safonau a rheoliadau'r UE drwy gytundeb masnach. A gaf i atgyfnerthu gydag ef, neu o leiaf bwysleisio safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU, na fydd unrhyw gyfochri dynamig o'r fath. Hyderwn y byddan nhw'n cadw at eu haddewidion. Os gwnân nhw hynny, siawns na fydd yn ofynnol i ni gadw'n gyfredol â deddfwriaeth yr UE yn y modd hwn, ac os, fel y dywed, bod dulliau eraill ar gael i alluogi Cymru i gadw'n gyfredol pan ystyriwn fod angen hynny, onid yw hynny'n awgrymu y byddwn ni, mewn llawer o feysydd, yn gwyro oddi wrth ddeddfwriaeth y DU sy'n berthnasol yn Lloegr, mewn modd a fydd yn gwneud busnes yng Nghymru yn fwy anodd ac yn llai deniadol?