English: Could I just begin by welcoming the, I believe, genuinely constructive way in which the First Minister has laid out the amendments he's put forward, and the way in which he's willing to work with the UK Government not to thwart the voice that was clear within the referendum, nor to thwart the EU withdrawal Bill, but to make it fit legally and constitutionally as well? The First Minister may be aware that yesterday a large group of cross-party Assembly Members constituting our two committees - the committee of David Rees, the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, and my Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee - sat for many hours with over 60 eminent authorities, both from a UK perspective and a Welsh perspective, looking at the legal and constitutional issues. It will probably come as no surprise to find that the shape of the amendments put forward by the First Minister reflect and respond to many of the concerns that were picked up by those people, and these included people from the Hansard Society and the Institute for Government in Westminster as well as Welsh authorities. There was no voice of dissent that there are genuine threats. To respond to Neil's point, they recognise that this is indeed a mountain, not a molehill. It's not technical issues that we are dancing over, but fundamental constitutional issues that should concern - and I think do concern, with some thought - all of us here within the Assembly. So, the question I'd like to ask the First Minister in the amendments that he has put forward - . By the way, before I ask that question, it was interesting to note that, at one point, with no dissent, it was put forward by one participant yesterday that there would have been a different way to do this Bill, which would have been to actually shape it in a way recognising that there was no legal impediment to a very different EU withdrawal Bill - one that gave to Wales fully and clearly that which, on withdrawal from the EU, lies within our existing competence. It was seen that there was no legal impediment to doing a very different Bill. But let's put that to one side. What it'd like to ask the First Minister is: does he feel, having said already that he cannot recommend an affirmative response to an LCM on the Bill as it currently is - does he regard it as essential that all of the amendments that he has put forward must be accepted, or brought forward in some shape by the Government, satisfactorily, all of them, in order to make, in the First Minister's opinion, this EU withdrawal Bill fit for purpose? Secondly, does he also think that those additional mechanisms, both to resolve disputes in future and to seek agreement in future, are also essential as part of saying yes to this EU withdrawal Bill.
Welsh: Hoffwn i ddechrau trwy groesawu ffordd wirioneddol adeiladol, yn fy marn, y Prif Weinidog o ddisgrifio'r gwelliannau y mae wedi eu cyflwyno, a'r ffordd y mae'n fodlon gweithio gyda Llywodraeth y DU i beidio â rhwystro'r llais a oedd yn glir yn y refferendwm, nac i rwystro'r Bil ymadael â'r UE, ond i'w wneud yn addas yn gyfreithiol ac yn gyfansoddiadol hefyd? Efallai y bydd y Prif Weinidog yn ymwybodol bod grŵp mawr o Aelodau'r Cynulliad o'n dau bwyllgor trawsbleidiol - pwyllgor David Rees, y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol, a'm Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol i - wedi eistedd am oriau lawer ddoe yng nghwmni dros 60 o awdurdodau amlwg, o safbwynt y DU ac o safbwynt Cymru, i ystyried y materion cyfreithiol a chyfansoddiadol. Mae'n debyg na fydd yn syndod cael gwybod bod siâp y gwelliannau a gyflwynwyd gan y Prif Weinidog yn adlewyrchu ac yn ymateb i lawer o'r pryderon a godwyd gan y bobl hynny, a bod y rhain yn cynnwys pobl o Gymdeithas Hansard a'r Sefydliad Llywodraeth yn San Steffan yn ogystal ag awdurdodau Cymru. Nid oedd unrhyw anghytundeb bod yna fygythiadau gwirioneddol. I ymateb i bwynt Neil, maen nhw'n cydnabod pwysigrwydd hyn. Nid materion technegol yr ydym ni'n eu tafod, ond materion cyfansoddiadol sylfaenol a ddylai fod yn destun pryder - ac rwy'n credu eu bod yn destun pryder, gyda rhywfaint o feddwl - i bob un ohonom yma yn y Cynulliad. Felly, y cwestiwn yr hoffwn i ei ofyn i'r Prif Weinidog ynghylch y gwelliannau y mae wedi eu cyflwyno - . Gyda llaw, cyn i mi ofyn y cwestiwn hwnnw, yr oedd yn ddiddorol nodi ddoe, ar un adeg, heb unrhyw anghytuno, fod un cyfranogwr wedi awgrymu ddoe y byddai ffordd wahanol o gyflwyno'r Bil hwn wedi gweithio, sef ei lunio mewn ffordd a oedd yn cydnabod nad oedd unrhyw rwystr cyfreithiol i Fil ymadael â'r UE gwahanol iawn - un a fyddai'n rhoi i Gymru yn llwyr ac yn glir, yr hyn sydd, ar ôl ymadael â'r UE, yn rhan o'n cymhwysedd presennol. Gwelwyd nad oedd unrhyw rwystr cyfreithiol i lunio Bil tra gwahanol. Ond gadewch i ni roi hynny o'r neilltu. Yr hyn yr hoffwn i ei ofyn i'r Prif Weinidog yw hyn: a yw o'r farn, ar ôl dweud eisoes na all argymell ymateb yn gadarnhaol i'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol ar y Bil fel y mae ar hyn o bryd - a yw'n ei ystyried yn hanfodol bod yn rhaid derbyn yr holl welliannau y mae wedi eu cyflwyno, neu y mae'r Llywodraeth wedi eu cyflwyno mewn rhyw fodd, yn foddhaol, bob un, er mwyn gwneud y Bil ymadael â'r UE hwn yn addas at ei ddiben, ym marn y Prif Weinidog? Yn ail, a yw hefyd yn credu bod y mecanweithiau ychwanegol hynny, i ddatrys anghydfod yn y dyfodol a cheisio cytundeb yn y dyfodol, hefyd yn hanfodol ac yn rhan o ddweud ie i'r Bil ymadael â'r UE hwn.