English: The Cabinet Secretary, in the course of his statement, said that he couldn't see any advantages from a 'no deal' Brexit. It's inevitable that there would be costs of a 'no deal' Brexit - nobody's ever denied that there would be transitional costs of leaving the EU, in the same way as there were significant transitional costs of joining it in the first place. But the protectionist policies of the EU bear down most heavily upon those at the lower end of the income scale in this country, from a protectionist agricultural policy where tariffs are as high as 50 per cent on the one hand, to taxes on footwear and clothing, and even, through the VAT code, on things like sanitary products and many others that we've frequently referred to in the course of this debate. We will have the freedom, once we're out of the EU, to make our decisions for ourselves in all of these areas, and to get rid of the regressive elements in the trade and tax codes that the EU has forced upon us. I've no fear of the trade consequences of leaving the EU for the longer term. He referred, as the First Minister did earlier on today - [ Interruption. ] I've asked several questions up until now and I'll ask a few more as well in the short time that remains to me. It's the EU that will be fundamentally the loser from cutting off trade flows or restricting trade flows, because we have a massive trade deficit with them. Eighty-eight per cent of the cars that are registered in Britain every year actually originate from the EU. We have a trade deficit in cars amounting to millions with Germany alone. Admittedly, there will be problems for certain agricultural sectors if there is no deal, particularly, as we know, for lamb producers, but the sums of money involved here in global terms are small, and can easily be dealt with by a Government that has the will to put in place a system that protects the interests of those who would be disadvantaged. After all, the figures are that we import from abroad £0.4 billion worth of lamb, and we export £0.3 billion, so there was a deficit on imports of lamb. There's massive opportunity for import substitution for British farmers generally if the EU is so stupid as to try to force us into a position where there is no deal, to which they are actually legally committed to find a way to achieve through the Lisbon treaty itself. So, they would be breaking their own laws if they were to carry on the road that they are on. So, what I ask the Cabinet Secretary to do, with no confidence whatsoever that he'll take my advice, is to become a bit more cheerful and optimistic about the future. Whatever the short-term costs, the long-term gains in democracy for the British people are what this is all about. Why should we want to outsource the making of our laws to a collection of international technocrats who not only do we not elect and cannot dismiss, but we can't even name? This is the very reverse, I think, of what the Labour Party was set up to achieve - to use the forces of parliamentary democracy to benefit working people in this country. The idea that the sort of people who are in international business organisations, like Carolyn Fairbairn, representing the Confederation of British Industry, a body that has been absolutely wrong on every major issue economically in my lifetime, from incomes policy to the European monetary system - the idea that their advice is worth taking seems to me to be bizarre for a Corbynite. Perhaps these contradictions will be explained in another forum. So, the last question I want to ask the Cabinet Secretary relates to the possibility of a second referendum, because it's quite clear now that the direction that the Labour Party is going in is actually to have a second referendum. Because, whatever deal is done, or if no deal is done, they hope that the British people will take a different decision next time from the one that they took last time. But how many times do we have to have a vote on this issue? They spent 40 years denying us one - since 1975. If we have a second referendum, the British people must be forced to keep on voting until they provide the Labour Party with the result that they want. If we have a second referendum, why not a third, why not a fourth, why don't we make it an annual event like Christmas, because then we will have something to look forward to as politicians every year, something to keep us all in business? So, where does it end? That's what I ask. The British people decided, including the Welsh people, by a majority - they rejected the policies of Plaid Cymru, they rejected the policies of the Labour Party, in the referendum in May 2016. And, therefore, will the Cabinet Secretary not take the votes of the Welsh people, and the British people, at face value, and give them what they want, which is freedom from the EU?
Welsh: Dywedodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn ystod ei ddatganiad na allai weld unrhyw fanteision o Brexit 'dim bargen'. Mae'n anochel y byddai costau ynghlwm â Brexit 'dim bargen' - nid oes neb erioed wedi gwadu y byddai costau trosiannol i adael yr UE, yn yr un modd ag yr oedd costau trosiannol sylweddol o ymuno yn y lle cyntaf. Ond mae polisïau diffyndollol yr UE yn pwyso drymaf ar y rhai sydd ar ben isaf y raddfa incwm yn y wlad hon, o bolisi amaethyddol diffyndollol ble mae tariffau mor uchel â 50 y cant ar y naill law, i drethi ar esgidiau a dillad, a hyd yn oed, drwy'r Cod TAW, ar bethau fel cynnyrch glanweithdra a llawer o gynhyrchion eraill yr ydym ni wedi cyfeirio atyn nhw yn ystod y ddadl hon. Bydd gennym ni'r rhyddid, pan rydym ni wedi ymadael â'r UE, i wneud ein penderfyniadau ein hunain ym mhob un o'r meysydd hyn, ac i gael gwared ar yr elfennau atchweliadol yn y codau treth a masnach y mae'r UE wedi eu gorfodi arnom ni. Does arnaf i ddim ofn y goblygiadau masnach wrth adael yr UE ar gyfer y tymor hwy. Cyfeiriodd, fel y gwnaeth y Prif Weinidog yn gynharach heddiw - [ torri ar draws. ] Rwyf wedi gofyn nifer o gwestiynau hyd yn hyn a byddaf yn gofyn ychydig mwy hefyd yn yr amser byr sydd gennyf yn weddill. Yr UE fydd yn sylfaenol ar ei cholled wrth dorri llifau masnach neu gyfyngu ar lifau masnach, oherwydd mae gennym ni ddiffyg masnach enfawr â nhw. Mae wyth deg wyth y cant o geir sydd wedi'u cofrestru ym Mhrydain bob blwyddyn mewn gwirionedd yn tarddu o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae gennym ni ddiffyg masnach mewn ceir gwerth miliynau â'r Almaen yn unig. Mae'n rhaid cyfaddef, bydd problemau i rai sectorau amaethyddol os nad oes bargen, yn enwedig, fel y gwyddom ni, ar gyfer cynhyrchwyr cig oen, ond mae'r symiau o arian dan sylw yma mewn termau byd-eang yn fach, ac fe allai Llywodraeth sydd â'r ewyllys i weithredu system sy'n amddiffyn buddiannau'r rhai a fyddai o dan anfantais ymdrin â nhw yn hawdd. Wedi'r cyfan, dengys ffigurau ein bod yn mewnforio £0.4 biliwn o gig oen o dramor, ac yn allforio £0.3 biliwn, felly roedd diffyg ar fewnforion cig oen. Mae cyfle enfawr o ran amnewid mewnforion ar gyfer ffermwyr Prydain yn gyffredinol os yw'r UE yn ddigon hurt i geisio ein gorfodi i sefyllfa lle nad oes bargen, y maen nhw mewn gwirionedd wedi ymrwymo'n gyfreithiol i geisio ei gyflawni drwy Gytuniad Lisbon. Felly, bydden nhw'n torri eu deddfau eu hunain pe baen nhw'n parhau i ymddwyn fel y maen nhw. Felly, yr hyn rwy'n ei ofyn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet ei wneud, heb unrhyw ffydd o gwbl y bydd yn derbyn fy nghyngor, yw bod ychydig yn fwy siriol a gobeithiol am y dyfodol. Beth bynnag yw'r costau tymor byr, yr enillion tymor hir mewn democratiaeth i bobl Prydain yw hanfod hyn i gyd. Pam y byddai arnom ni eisiau allanoli ein cyfreithiau i griw o dechnocratiaid rhyngwladol nad ydym yn eu hethol ac na allwn ni gael gwared arnyn nhw, ond na allwn ni hyd yn oed eu henwi ychwaith? Dyma'r gwrthwyneb yn llwyr, rwy'n credu, i'r hyn y sefydlwyd y Blaid Lafur i'w gyflawni - i ddefnyddio grymoedd democratiaeth seneddol er budd dosbarth gweithiol y wlad hon. Mae'r syniad bod y math o bobl sydd mewn sefydliadau busnes rhyngwladol, fel Carolyn Fairbairn, sy'n cynrychioli Cydffederasiwn Diwydiant Prydain, corff sydd wedi bod yn hollol anghywir ar bob mater economaidd o bwys yn ystod fy oes i, o incwm polisi i system ariannol Ewrop - mae'r syniad bod eu cyngor yn werth gwrando arno yn ymddangos i mi yn rhyfedd i un o gefnogwyr Corbyn. Efallai y caiff y gwrthgyferbyniadau hynny eu h esbonio mewn fforwm arall. Felly, mae'r cwestiwn olaf yr hoffwn i ei ofyn i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn ymwneud â'r posibilrwydd o gynnal ail refferendwm, oherwydd mae'n eithaf clir bellach mai'r cyfeiriad y mae'r Blaid Lafur yn troedio tuag ato mewn gwirionedd yw cael ail refferendwm. Oherwydd, beth bynnag yw'r fargen a gaiff ei tharo, neu os na cheir unrhyw fargen, maen nhw'n gobeithio y bydd pobl Prydain yn gwneud penderfyniad gwahanol y tro nesaf i'r un a wnaethant y tro diwethaf. Ond sawl gwaith y mae'n rhaid inni gael pleidlais ar y mater hwn? Maen nhw wedi treulio 40 mlynedd yn gwarafun un inni - ers 1975. Os cawn ni ail refferendwm, rhaid gorfodi pobl Prydain i barhau i bleidleisio hyd nes y caiff y Blaid Lafur y canlyniad y maen nhw'n ei ddymuno. Os ydym ni'n cael ail refferendwm, pam ddim trydydd, pam ddim pedwerydd, pam ddim ei wneud yn ddigwyddiad blynyddol fel y Nadolig, oherwydd yna bydd gennym ni rywbeth i edrych ymlaen ato fel gwleidyddion bob blwyddyn, rhywbeth i'n cadw i gyd mewn gwaith? Felly, lle y daw hyn i gyd i ben? Dyna rwy'n ei ofyn. Penderfynodd pobl Prydain, gan gynnwys pobl Cymru, â mwyafrif - fe wnaethon nhw wrthod polisïau Plaid Cymru, fe wnaethon nhw wrthod polisïau'r Blaid Lafur, yn y refferendwm ym mis Mai 2016. Ac, felly, a wnaiff Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dderbyn pleidleisiau pobl Cymru a phobl Prydain am yr hyn ydyn nhw yn eu hanfod a rhoi iddyn nhw yr hyn y mae arnyn nhw ei eisiau, sef rhyddid oddi wrth yr UE?