English: It's never a good idea to compare yourself to Lance Corporal Jones in 'Dad's Army', is it? It was Clive Dunn who said so on the benches over there; he realised his mistake as soon as he said it, but I'll leave him to reflect on that. Churchill - . Apart from the fact he talked about the wrong Chamberlain, Churchill is probably the wrong person to invoke in European debates, because Churchill said three things. First of all, at the time of the war, he wanted the UK and France to become one state - one country, one state. That was his view at the time. He was the first to be enthusiastic about a European Union. He was the first to mention a European army, actually, Churchill. Churchill would have had no truck with Brexit - I can promise that now - not considering what he said in the past. Now, in terms of the final thing that he said, I can say that - . Yes, the Secretary of State for Wales - he does not have a good record of co-operation; I'll put it that way. Let me give him an example of what's happened recently. A brochure has been sent to all businesses in Wales, apparently from the Secretary of State for Wales's office - not a single Welsh flag on it, may I add - explaining how the UK Government can help businesses. Well, so far so good, you might say. But then it goes on quoting different businesses in Wales who've had support from the Welsh Government, and many of the things that are mentioned there are export support, trade missions, finance, that have come from the Welsh Government, which the Secretary of State has tried to claim as his own. It's not the first time he's done it. He's already claimed he brought Qatar Airways into Cardiff. He had no role at all in that. That was done - and I give credit to the individual who did it - by Roger Lewis, who is the chair of the airport. He was the one who showed the persistence to bring Qatar Airways in. So, the UK Government - . Well, no - the Secretary of State for Wales has a very poor record of co-operating and asking for co-operation when he sees fit. He has been invited, if I remember rightly, to the council for economic development. He hasn't been yet, but nevertheless an invitation is there for him to come along. That is the forum for Welsh businesses to work with the Welsh Government, and there's no reason why the Secretary of State can't be at that forum rather than trying to create his own, which is what he's trying to do at the moment. Now, let's turn to the points that Mark Isherwood made. Is there a need for co-operation? Yes. Is there a need for common standards? Yes, and in fact there's need for common standards with the EU, actually. We can't have our own standards. It makes no sense for that to happen. Secondly, is the destination in terms of certainty shared between us and the UK Government? Yes, it is. Yes, it is. We understand the need for there to be certainty for businesses, for there to be minimal interference in the single market of the UK. We understand that. The difference is we take the view that that destination should be travelled and reached by agreement of the Governments and not by the imposition of one rule by one Government on the other two - hopefully the other three in the future. So, what it means is that the UK Government could do anything it wanted in England, but we could not do the same in Wales. It means, for example - and he's acknowledged he shares some of these concerns - that UK Ministers could amend devolved legislation passed in this place without asking this place or Welsh Ministers, or, indeed, the UK Parliament. That has to be wrong in principle. This is not designed to be a situation where London simply becomes the new Brussels, and is seen as somewhere that is remote and undemocratic. That is not something he and I would want to see, surely, as two who believe in the union. In terms of the second phase of talks, he's wrong to say that the EU and its constituent states have given the green light to the next phase of talks; what they have done is begun preparations for them. They are two different things. At the moment, the talks are stalled. I don't want to see the talks stall - clearly not. I want for there be movement in those talks, and I hope that movement is there by December so that this can progress, so we don't end up falling off the edge of a cliff in March. But it's not right to say that the second phase of talks has been initiated. The reality is at the moment that the EU is far more united in terms of its aims and its goals than the UK is. We have a Prime Minister, and much of what she's said I agree with. The Florence speech: there was much in that that I welcomed. And then you have Boris Johnson, who says something different. And then you have another Minister, Liam Fox, who says something different. The problem - and the frustration at EU level - is that the UK is seen as not having a clue what it wants, and not having an idea of what sort of outcome it wants to see. The Prime Minister made what I think was a tactical mistake. She presented herself as being in favour, although she was a remainer, of a hard Brexit - outside of the customs union, outside of the single market - and went into an election thinking that was an electoral asset, and it wasn't. As a result, she now has no mandate to take the UK forward on that hardest of Brexits. It's hugely important, then, that the UK Government works with the devolved administrations to deliver - and we have to deliver Brexit - the kind of Brexit that has minimal negative effect on the economy of Wales and the rest of the UK. There is no justification for saying that, when people voted to leave the EU, they voted to leave the single market. There is no justification for saying that, when people voted to leave the EU, they voted to leave the customs union. None of these things were highlighted in the election, except by politicians from UKIP. Because politicians from UKIP said - for example, Daniel Hannan - nobody's going to leave the single market. Nigel Farage said, 'We can be like' - [Interruption.] I know you don't like it, but Nigel Farage said, 'We can be like Norway'. He said it. 'We can have our cake and eat it', to quote Boris Johnson. 'We can be in the EEA'. People were misled last year. They were told that German car manufacturers would force a free trade agreement on the EU. It's not going to happen. They care more about the single market than anything else. None of those things have come to pass. Now, when we talk about 'no deal', we should be very clear about what that means. He doesn't advocate it. That's not what he's advocating, but there are plenty in his party who do - not everybody. If we cannot negotiate a deal with our closest neighbours, with whom we share a land border, with whom we share a great deal of regulatory convergence, we have no hope of negotiating a deal with countries that don't have any of those factors in common with us. How on earth could we? I don't accept this idea that there is a nirvana out there of free trade agreements that will be to our benefit. There isn't. If we leave the EU without a deal in March 2019, we will not have a free trade agreement with anyone - not with anyone - because none will have been agreed at that point. Where does that leave us? Isolated and unable to trade freely with other countries. That surely is not what anybody wanted to see. I don't think that free trade agreements are the answer, actually. I think free trade agreements work well when they are concluded with countries with a similar income level as you. When they are not, you invite jobs to leave your country and go somewhere else. That was the main complaint in the US in the presidential election, that jobs had gone to Mexico because labour costs were cheaper. And that was because of a free trade agreement. So, we must be very careful about seeing free trade agreements as the panacea for everything. It depends which market and which country you are talking to. Finally, he mentions the border. He will forgive me: I know it well, that border - very, very well. It's unpoliceable. I remember it when the Troubles were still flaring. There were security checkpoints. Minor roads were blown up by the British army to stop people crossing them. There were designated checkpoints. Even then, it was not possible to police that border. No-one wants to go back to those days. Any kind of manifestation of a border invites problems in Northern Ireland. You come back to this point - I've heard the argument made - that there will be technological solutions. There aren't any technological solutions. How can there be? For example, if goods are crossing between Ireland and the UK and vice versa, who regulates them? Nobody. There's a self-declaration system, possibly, but, actually, it's a light touch of policing; it's an invitation for smuggling. Secondly, if there is no passport control on the border between Ireland and the UK, as long as somebody can get into Ireland, they can get into the UK. The UK loses control of its border in those circumstances. So, the idea that the UK will control its borders is impossible unless there is a physical manifestation of a border in Ireland. Technological solutions won't work in that regard. It's been suggested to me that there'll be cameras. Those cameras won't last long, because people will not accept any kind of manifestation of a border beyond the changing of colour of the lines at the side of the road, between yellow on one side and white on the other. Now, these are issues that are not easy to resolve. They can be resolved if we stay in the customs union - done. There's no problem in terms of goods. There's more of a problem in terms of passport control, that's true. It helps that the Republic is not in Schengen, that's true. But, nevertheless, these are difficult, difficult questions that need to be answered, and we will offer our help to the UK Government to help to come to the conclusions that people want to see, namely a Brexit that satisfies what people voted for last year, but a Brexit that does not have a negative impact on the economies of Wales and Britain.
Welsh: Dydy hi byth yn syniad da cymharu eich hun â Lance Corporal Jones yn 'Dad's Army', ydy hi? Clive Dunn a ddywedodd hynny ar y meinciau fan acw; sylweddolodd ei gamgymeriad cyn gynted ag y dywedodd hynny, ond rwy'n mynd i adael iddo ef fyfyrio ar hynny. Churchill - . Heblaw am y ffaith ei fod wedi sôn am y Chamberlain anghywir, mae'n debyg mai Churchill yw'r person anghywir i sôn amdano mewn dadleuon am Ewrop, oherwydd dywedodd Churchill dri pheth. Yn gyntaf oll, ar adeg y rhyfel, roedd am i'r DU a Ffrainc ddod yn un wladwriaeth - un wlad, un wladwriaeth. Dyna oedd ei farn ar y pryd. Ef oedd y cyntaf i fod yn frwdfrydig am Undeb Ewropeaidd. Ef oedd y cyntaf i sôn am fyddin Ewropeaidd, a dweud y gwir, Churchill. Ni fyddai Churchill wedi cael dim i'w wneud â Brexit - gallaf addo hynny nawr - o ystyried yr hyn a ddywedodd yn y gorffennol. Nawr, o ran y peth olaf a ddywedodd, gallaf ddweud - . Ie, Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru - nid oes ganddo record dda o gydweithrediad; dewch imi ddweud hynny. Dewch imi roi enghraifft iddo o'r hyn a ddigwyddodd yn ddiweddar. Anfonwyd taflen at bob busnes yng Nghymru, mae'n debyg o swyddfa Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru - heb yr un baner Cymru arni, os caf ychwanegu - i esbonio sut y gall Llywodraeth y DU helpu busnesau. Wel, popeth yn iawn hyd yn hyn, efallai. Ond yna mae'n dyfynnu gwahanol fusnesau yng Nghymru sydd wedi cael cymorth gan Lywodraeth Cymru, a llawer o'r pethau y sonnir amdanynt yno yw cymorth allforio, teithiau masnach, cyllid, sydd wedi dod gan Lywodraeth Cymru, ac mae'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn ceisio honni eu bod yn dod ganddo ef. Nid dyma'r tro cyntaf iddo wneud hynny. Mae eisoes wedi honni mai ef ddaeth â Qatar Airways i Gaerdydd. Ni wnaeth gyfrannu o gwbl at hynny. Gwnaethpwyd hynny - ac rwy'n rhoi clod i'r unigolyn a wnaeth hynny - gan Roger Lewis, sef cadeirydd y maes awyr. Ef oedd yr un a ddangosodd y dyfalbarhad i ddod â Qatar Airways i mewn. Felly, mae gan Lywodraeth y DU - . Wel, na - mae gan Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru hanes gwael iawn o gydweithredu a gofyn am gydweithrediad pan fydd yn gweld yn dda. Fe'i gwahoddwyd, os cofiaf yn iawn, i'r cyngor ar gyfer datblygu economaidd. Nid yw wedi bod eto, ond serch hynny mae gwahoddiad yno iddo ddod draw. Dyna'r fforwm lle mae busnesau Cymru'n gweithio gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, a does dim rheswm pam na all yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol fod yn y fforwm hwnnw yn hytrach na cheisio creu ei un ei hun, sef yr hyn y mae'n ceisio ei wneud ar hyn o bryd. Nawr, dewch inni droi at y pwyntiau a wnaeth Mark Isherwood. A oes angen cydweithredu? Oes. A oes angen safonau cyffredin? Oes, ac mae angen safonau cyffredin gyda'r UE, a dweud y gwir. Ni allwn greu ein safonau ein hunain. Nid yw'n gwneud synnwyr i hynny ddigwydd. Yn ail, a yw'r canlyniad o ran sicrwydd wedi'i rannu rhyngom ni a Llywodraeth y DU? Ydy, mae. Rydym yn deall bod angen sicrwydd ar fusnesau, a bod angen cyn lleied â phosibl o ymyrraeth ym marchnad sengl y DU. Rydym yn deall hynny. Y gwahaniaeth yw ein bod ni o'r farn y dylai'r Llywodraethau gytuno ar sut i gyrraedd y canlyniad hwnnw heb i un Llywodraeth osod un rheol ar y ddwy arall - gobeithio y tair arall yn y dyfodol. Felly, beth mae'n ei olygu yw y gallai Llywodraeth y DU wneud fel y mynno hi yn Lloegr, ond na allem ni wneud yr un peth yng Nghymru. Mae'n golygu, er enghraifft - ac mae wedi cydnabod ei fod yn rhannu rhai o'r pryderon hyn - y gallai Gweinidogion y DU ddiwygio deddfwriaeth ddatganoledig a basiwyd yn y lle hwn heb ofyn i'r lle hwn nac i Weinidogion Cymru, nac, yn wir, i Senedd y DU. Mae'n rhaid bod hynny'n anghywir mewn egwyddor. Nid yw hyn wedi'i gynllunio i fod yn sefyllfa lle mae Llundain yn troi'n Frwsel newydd ar unwaith, ac fe'i gwelir fel rhywle sy'n anghysbell ac yn annemocrataidd. Nid yw hynny'n rhywbeth yr hoffai ef na fi ei weld, does bosib, fel dau sy'n credu yn yr undeb. O ran ail gam y sgyrsiau, mae'n anghywir dweud bod yr UE a'i gwladwriaethau cyfansoddiadol wedi rhoi'r golau gwyrdd i gam nesaf y sgyrsiau; yr hyn maen nhw wedi'i wneud yw dechrau paratoi ar eu cyfer. Mae'r rheini'n ddau beth gwahanol. Ar hyn o bryd, mae'r sgyrsiau wedi pallu. Dydw i ddim eisiau gweld y sgyrsiau'n pallu - yn amlwg ddim. Rwyf am i'r trafodaethau hynny symud, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd y symudiad yno erbyn mis Rhagfyr fel y gall hyn symud ymlaen, fel na fyddwn yn syrthio dros ymyl dibyn ym mis Mawrth. Ond nid yw'n iawn dweud bod ail gam y sgyrsiau wedi cychwyn. Y realiti ar hyn o bryd yw bod yr UE yn llawer mwy unedig o ran eu nodau a'u targedau na'r DU. Mae gennym Brif Weinidog, ac rwy'n cytuno â llawer o'r hyn y mae hi wedi'i ddweud. Araith Florence: roeddwn yn croesawu llawer o honno. Ac yna mae gennych Boris Johnson, sy'n dweud rhywbeth gwahanol. Ac yna mae gennych Weinidog arall, Liam Fox, sy'n dweud rhywbeth gwahanol. Y broblem - a'r rhwystredigaeth ar lefel yr UE - yw ei bod yn ymddangos nad oes gan y DU syniad am yr hyn y mae ei eisiau, ac nad oes ganddi syniad pa fath o ganlyniad yr hoffai ei weld. Gwnaeth y Prif Weinidog gamgymeriad tactegol, yn fy marn i. Fe'i cyflwynodd ei hun fel un oedd o blaid, er ei bod yn arhoswr, Brexit caled - y tu allan i'r undeb tollau, y tu allan i'r farchnad sengl - ac aeth i mewn i etholiad gan feddwl bod hynny'n ased etholiadol, ac nid oedd. O ganlyniad, nid oes ganddi nawr fandad i arwain y DU ar y Brexit caletaf hwnnw. Mae'n hynod bwysig, felly, bod Llywodraeth y DU yn gweithio gyda'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig i gyflawni - a rhaid inni gyflawni Brexit - y math o Brexit sy'n cael yr effaith negyddol leiaf ar economi Cymru a gweddill y DU. Does dim cyfiawnhad dros ddweud, pan bleidleisiodd pobl i adael yr UE, eu bod wedi pleidleisio i adael y farchnad sengl. Does dim cyfiawnhad dros ddweud, pan bleidleisiodd pobl i adael yr UE, eu bod wedi pleidleisio i adael yr undeb tollau. Ni chafodd dim un o'r pethau hyn sylw yn yr etholiad, ac eithrio gan wleidyddion UKIP. Oherwydd dywedodd gwleidyddion UKIP - er enghraifft, Daniel Hannan - nad oes neb yn mynd i adael y farchnad sengl. Dywedodd Nigel Farage, 'Gallwn ni fod fel' - [Torri ar draws.] Rwy'n gwybod nad ydych yn hoff o hyn, ond dywedodd Nigel Farage, 'Gallwn ni fod fel Norwy'. Dywedodd ef hynny. 'Gallwn ni gael ein cacen a'i bwyta', i ddyfynnu Boris Johnson. 'Gallwn ni fod yn yr AEE'. Cafodd pobl eu camarwain y llynedd. Dywedwyd wrthynt y byddai gwneuthurwyr ceir yr Almaen yn gorfodi cytundeb masnach rydd ar yr UE. Nid yw'n mynd i ddigwydd. Maent yn poeni mwy am y farchnad sengl nag am ddim byd arall. Does dim un o'r pethau hynny wedi digwydd. Nawr, pan fyddwn yn sôn am 'ddim bargen', dylem fod yn glir iawn ynglŷn â beth mae hynny'n ei olygu. Nid yw ef yn ei argymell. Nid dyna'r hyn y mae'n ei argymell, ond mae digon yn ei blaid sydd - nid pawb. Os na allwn negodi cytundeb â'n cymdogion agosaf, y rhai yr ydym yn rhannu ffin dir â nhw, y rhai yr ydym yn rhannu llawer iawn o gydgyfeiriant rheoleiddiol â nhw, does gennym ddim gobaith o negodi cytundeb â gwledydd nad oes ganddynt ddim o'r ffactorau hynny yn gyffredin â ni. Sut ar y ddaear allem ni? Nid wyf yn derbyn y syniad hwn bod yna nirfana allan yna o gytundebau masnach rydd a fydd o fudd inni. Does dim. Os ydym yn gadael yr UE heb fargen ym mis Mawrth 2019, fydd gennym ni ddim cytundeb masnach rydd â neb - â neb - oherwydd fydd dim un wedi'i gytuno ar yr adeg honno. Ble mae hynny'n ein gadael ni? Ar ein pennau ein hunain ac yn methu â masnachu'n rhydd â gwledydd eraill. Doedd neb eisiau gweld hynny, does bosib. Dydw i ddim yn meddwl mai cytundebau masnach rydd yw'r ateb, a dweud y gwir. Rwy'n meddwl bod cytundebau masnach rydd yn gweithio'n dda pan gânt eu llunio gyda gwledydd sydd â lefel incwm debyg i chi. Os nad yw hynny'n wir, rydych chi'n gwahodd swyddi i adael eich gwlad a mynd i rywle arall. Dyna oedd y brif gŵyn yn yr Unol Daleithiau yn yr etholiad arlywyddol, bod swyddi wedi mynd i Fecsico oherwydd bod costau llafur yn rhatach. Ac roedd hynny oherwydd cytundeb masnach rydd. Felly, mae'n rhaid inni fod yn ofalus iawn ynglŷn â gweld cytundebau masnach rydd fel y panacea i bopeth. Mae'n dibynnu pa farchnad a pha wlad rydych chi'n siarad â nhw. Yn olaf, mae'n sôn am y ffin. Bydd yn maddau imi: rwy'n ei hadnabod yn dda, y ffin honno - yn dda iawn, iawn. Does dim modd ei rheoli â heddlu. Rwy'n ei chofio pan oedd yr Helyntion yn dal i fod yn eu hanterth. Roedd yna fannau archwilio diogelwch. Fe wnaeth byddin Prydain chwalu ffyrdd bach i atal pobl rhag eu croesi nhw. Roedd yna fannau archwilio dynodedig. Hyd yn oed wedyn, doedd dim modd rheoli'r ffin honno â heddlu. Does neb eisiau mynd yn ôl i'r dyddiau hynny. Mae amlygu'r ffin mewn unrhyw fodd yn gwahodd problemau yng Ngogledd Iwerddon. Rydych yn dod yn ôl at y pwynt hwn - rwyf wedi clywed y ddadl yn cael ei gwneud - y bydd datrysiadau technolegol. Does dim datrysiadau technolegol. Sut y gallai fod? Er enghraifft, os yw nwyddau'n croesi rhwng Iwerddon a'r DU ac i'r gwrthwyneb, pwy sy'n eu rheoleiddio? Neb. Mae yna system hunan ddatgan, o bosibl, ond, a dweud y gwir, plismona cyffyrddiad ysgafn yw hynny; mae'n wahoddiad i smyglo. Yn ail, os nad oes rheolaeth pasbortau ar y ffin rhwng Iwerddon a'r DU, cyhyd â bod rhywun yn gallu mynd i Iwerddon, gall fynd i'r DU. Mae'r DU yn colli rheolaeth o'i ffin dan yr amgylchiadau hynny. Felly, mae'r syniad y bydd y DU yn rheoli ei ffiniau yn amhosib oni bai bod y ffin yn Iwerddon wedi'i hamlygu'n ffisegol. Wnaiff datrysiadau technolegol ddim gweithio yn hynny o beth. Rwyf wedi clywed awgrym y bydd camerâu yno. Wnaiff y camerâu hynny ddim para'n hir, oherwydd wnaiff pobl ddim derbyn unrhyw fath o amlygiad o ffin y tu hwnt i newid lliw'r llinellau ar ochr y ffordd, rhwng melyn ar un ochr a gwyn ar y llall. Nawr, dydy'r materion hyn ddim yn hawdd eu datrys. Gellir eu datrys os ydym yn aros yn yr undeb tollau - wedi ei wneud. Does dim problem o ran nwyddau. Mae yna fwy o broblem o ran rheoli pasbortau, mae hynny'n wir. Mae'n helpu nad yw'r Weriniaeth yn Schengen, mae hynny'n wir. Ond, serch hynny, mae'r rhain yn gwestiynau anodd, anodd y mae angen eu hateb, a byddwn yn cynnig ein cymorth i Lywodraeth y DU i helpu i ddod i'r casgliadau yr hoffai pobl eu gweld, sef Brexit sy'n bodloni'r hyn y pleidleisiodd pobl drosto y llynedd, ond Brexit nad yw'n cael effaith negyddol ar economïau Cymru a Phrydain.