English: In his earlier exchanges with the leader of the opposition, the First Minister was fulsome in his praise for the Supreme Court judgment. But would he agree with me that what we've seen today is the making of new law, which the Supreme Court, of course, does have the power to do? There's no doubt that prerogative powers are governed by the common law; that's been the case for 400 years, and nobody disputes that general proposition. But, previously, the use of the prerogative power to order a prorogation, and indeed the length of time for which that prorogation lasts, has always been regarded as inherently a political matter. And that for the courts to stray into this political arena carries with it certain dangers, which are obvious. In her summary of the judgment, Baroness Hale said this morning that, 'prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about.' One glaring omission in the judgment, of course, is any reference to the referendum, and the role that the British people have to play in their future. And when she said that Parliament, the House of Commons, as the elected representatives of the people, have a voice, what if they are not representing what the people voted for in June 2016, when 17.4 million people voted to leave, and now a remain Parliament is doing everything it possibly can to frustrate what the people voted for?
Welsh: Yn ei drafodaethau blaenorol gydag arweinydd yr wrthblaid, roedd y Prif Weinidog yn llawn canmoliaeth o ddyfarniad y Goruchaf Lys. Ond a fyddai'n cytuno â mi mai'r hyn yr ydym ni wedi ei weld heddiw yw creu cyfraith newydd, y mae gan y Goruchaf Lys, wrth gwrs, y grym i'w wneud? Nid oes unrhyw amheuaeth bod pwerau uchelfreiniol yn cael eu rheoli gan y gyfraith gyffredin; bu hynny'n wir am 400 mlynedd, ac nid oes neb yn gwadu'r gosodiad cyffredinol hwnnw. Ond, yn y gorffennol, ystyriwyd erioed bod y defnydd o'r grym uchelfreiniol i orchymyn gohiriad, ac yn wir y cyfnod y mae'r gohiriad hwnnw yn ei bara, yn fater gwleidyddol yn ei hanfod. Ac mae'r ffaith bod y llysoedd wedi crwydro i'r maes gwleidyddol hwn yn creu rhai peryglon penodol, sy'n amlwg. Yn ei chrynodeb o'r dyfarniad, dywedodd y Farwnes Hale y bore yma, gohiriwyd democratiaeth seneddol am gyfnod hir o dan amgylchiadau cwbl eithriadol: y newid sylfaenol a oedd i fod i ddigwydd yng nghyfansoddiad y Deyrnas Unedig ar 31 Hydref. Mae gan y Senedd, a Thŷ'r Cyffredin yn arbennig fel cynrychiolwyr etholedig y bobl, yr hawl i lais yn y ffordd y mae'r newid hwnnw'n digwydd. Un hepgoriad amlwg o'r dyfarniad, wrth gwrs, yw unrhyw gyfeiriad at y refferendwm, a'r rhan sydd gan bobl Prydain i'w chwarae yn eu dyfodol. A phan ddywedodd bod gan y Senedd, Tŷ'r Cyffredin, fel cynrychiolwyr etholedig y bobl, lais, beth os nad ydyn nhw'n cynrychioli'r hyn y pleidleisiodd y bobl drosto ym mis Mehefin 2016, pan bleidleisiodd 17.4 miliwn o bobl i adael, a nawr mae Senedd sydd o blaid aros yn gwneud popeth o fewn ei gallu i rwystro'r hyn y pleidleisiodd y bobl drosto?