English: Well, I cannot surely be blamed for the UK joining the European Community in 1972, given that I was five years old, in the same way as I was asked which way I'd voted in the 1979 referendum. Clearly, I need to look a little younger, because I was only 12. Nevertheless, we have to remember that the UK joined the EEC because it was desperate to do so. But that is perhaps for another day. This is not about reversing Brexit. I've said that many, many times. Surely, it is not a case of 'Brexit has to occur only on the terms put forward by the UK Government'. Because that is what they are saying: 'Our Brexit or tough luck'. Now, that is not a sensible way of dealing with issues when it comes to devolution. The UK is not what it was in 1972. It's not a unitary state with one Government. It is a partnership of four nations where there are different responsibilities allocated to different Governments according to whether they're devolved or non-devolved. I come back to the point I made earlier on, just to remind the leader of UKIP. What I am being asked to do here as First Minister, if the UK Government has its way, is to stand up before the Assembly and say to the Assembly that powers that would automatically come to the Assembly should instead go to London for an unlimited period of time and that we as an Assembly should support it. I mean, surely, nobody would want to support a scenario - well, some might, but nobody here would want to support a scenario like that, where powers that would come to us are intercepted. Yes, they're not powers we exercise at the moment, but they will be if they come naturally to rest here. What difference does it make - he complains about Brussels - if they then go and disappear into the Whitehall machinery, and then we find ourselves in a situation where we find it difficult to shape agriculture, to shape economic development, to shape our fisheries policy in a way that we would want? Of course it can't be a free for all. I understand that. We've got to make sure that there's a single market within the UK, and that we don't not have any control at all over how subsidies are paid. We can't win that battle. England is very big. We can't win that battle. So, there have to be rules. We understand that. But this should be done by consent and not by imposition. That's the key. This Bill - the offending clauses of this Bill that deal with devolution can be removed. That removes an obstacle, as far as devolution is concerned, in terms of this Bill moving forward. There are other issues that will be debated in Parliament, I'm sure, and within this Chamber. There is no penalty to the UK Government for this. It doesn't cost them anything. There's no downside to it at all. All they have to do is to work with us to come to an acceptable agreement, and it removes a problem for them. I just cannot understand the strategic sense in saying, 'Let's fight a battle with everybody we can', rather than saying, 'Let's focus on the issues. This is a problem for Wales and Scotland. It's not really a problem for us. Let's come to an agreement on it and that matter is dealt with'. So far there's been no suggestion that they've been able to do that, but it is something that we want to see in the future, and that's the fundamental issue here. In some ways it's not about Brexit. It's actually about powers resting where they're meant to rest, and the principle of consent when it comes to creating common frameworks in devolved areas rather than the imposition that this Bill, on the face of it - . I hear what's said by UK Ministers, but what's on the face of the Bill is quite different. What the Bill would do would be to deprive the people of Wales of powers that they are entitled to for an indefinite period of time, and in no way could I suggest to the Assembly that the Assembly should vote in favour of that.
Welsh: Wel, ni ellir rhoi'r bai arnaf i am i'r DU ymuno â'r Gymuned Ewropeaidd ym 1972, o gofio fy mod i'n bump oed ar y pryd, yn yr un modd ag y gofynnwyd i mi pa ffordd yr oeddwn wedi pleidleisio yn refferendwm 1979. Yn amlwg, mae angen i mi edrych ychydig yn iau, oherwydd dim ond 12 oed oeddwn i. Serch hynny, mae'n rhaid i ni gofio bod y DU wedi ymuno â'r Gymuned Economaidd Ewropeaidd oherwydd ei fod yn dyheu am wneud hynny yn fawr iawn. Ond trafodaeth ar gyfer diwrnod arall yw honno o bosibl. Nid yw hyn yn ymwneud â gwrthdroi Brexit. Rwyf wedi dweud hynny dro ar ôl tro. Siawns bod hyn yn achos o 'Mae'n rhaid i Brexit ddigwydd ar y telerau a gyflwynir gan Lywodraeth y DU yn unig'. Oherwydd dyna'r hyn maen nhw'n ei ddweud: 'Ein Brexit ni neu hen dro i chi'. Nawr, nid yw hynny'n ffordd synhwyrol o ymdrin â materion pan ddaw i ddatganoli. Nid yw'r DU fel yr oedd ym 1972. Nid yw'n wladwriaeth unedol gydag un Llywodraeth. Mae'n bartneriaeth o bedair gwlad lle mae gwahanol gyfrifoldebau wedi'u dyrannu i'r gwahanol lywodraethau yn unol ag a ydyn nhw wedi'u datganoli neu heb eu datganoli. Dychwelaf at y pwynt y gwnes i'n gynharach, i atgoffa arweinydd UKIP. Yr hyn y gofynnir i mi ei wneud yma fel Prif Weinidog, os caiff Llywodraeth y DU ei ffordd, yw sefyll gerbron y Cynulliad a dweud wrth y Cynulliad y dylai'r pwerau a fyddai'n dod yn awtomatig i'r Cynulliad fynd i Lundain am gyfnod diderfyn ac y dylem ni fel Cynulliad gefnogi hynny. Does bosib na fyddai neb yn dymuno cefnogi sefyllfa o'r fath - wel, mae'n bosibl y byddai rhai, ond ni fyddai neb yma eisiau cefnogi sefyllfa o'r fath, lle mae pwerau a fyddai'n dod atom ni yn cael eu cipio. Yn wir, nid ydyn nhw'n bwerau yr ydym yn eu harfer ar hyn o bryd, ond yn naturiol, byddan nhw'n dod atom ni. Pa wahaniaeth y mae'n ei wneud - mae'n cwyno am Frwsel - os ydyn nhw wedyn yn mynd i Whitehall ac yn diflannu i'w fecanweithiau, ac wedyn rydym mewn sefyllfa lle rydym yn ei chael yn anodd llunio amaethyddiaeth, llunio datblygiad economaidd, llunio ein polisi pysgodfeydd yn y ffordd y byddem yn ei dymuno? Wrth gwrs, ni ellir rhoi rhyddid i bawb. Rwy'n deall hynny. Mae'n rhaid i ni sicrhau bod marchnad sengl yn y DU, ac nad oes gennym unrhyw reolaeth o gwbl dros sut y telir cymorthdaliadau. Ni allwn ennill y frwydr honno. Mae Lloegr yn fawr iawn. Ni allwn ennill y frwydr honno. Felly, mae'n rhaid cael rheolau. Rydym yn deall hynny. Ond dylid gwneud hyn trwy ganiatâd ac nid trwy orfodaeth. Hynny sy'n allweddol. Y Bil hwn - gellir dileu'r cymalau dadleuol o'r Bil hwn sy'n ymdrin â datganoli. Mae hynny'n dileu rhwystr, o ran datganoli, wrth symud y Bil hwn ymlaen. Mae yna faterion eraill a drafodir yn y Senedd, rwy'n siŵr, ac yn y Siambr hon. Nid oes pris i Lywodraeth y DU am hyn. Nid oes unrhyw gost iddyn nhw. Nid oes unrhyw anfantais iddyn nhw o gwbl. Y cyfan y mae'n rhaid iddyn nhw ei wneud yw gweithio gyda ni i ddod i gytundeb derbyniol, ac mae'n dileu problem iddyn nhw. Ni allaf ddeall y synnwyr strategol o ddweud, 'Gadewch i ni frwydro yn erbyn pawb posibl', yn hytrach na dweud, 'Gadewch i ni ganolbwyntio ar y materion. Mae hon yn broblem i Gymru a'r Alban. Nid yw'n broblem i ni mewn gwirionedd. Gadewch i ni ddod i gytundeb ar y mater ac ymdrin ag ef'. Hyd yn hyn, ni fu unrhyw awgrym eu bod wedi gallu gwneud hynny, ond mae'n rhywbeth yr ydym ni'n dymuno ei weld yn y dyfodol, a dyna'r mater sylfaenol yma. Mewn rhai ffyrdd, nid yw'n ymwneud â Brexit. Mewn gwirionedd, mae'n ymwneud â sicrhau bod y pwerau lle maen nhw i fod, a'r egwyddor o ganiatâd wrth sôn am greu fframweithiau cyffredin mewn meysydd datganoledig, yn hytrach na gorfodi'r Bil hwn, ar yr wyneb - . Rwy'n clywed yr hyn a ddywedir gan Weinidogion y DU, ond mae'r hyn sydd ar wyneb y Bil yn eithaf gwahanol. Yr hyn y byddai'r Bil yn ei wneud fyddai amddifadu pobl Cymru o'r pwerau y mae ganddyn nhw'r hawl iddynt am gyfnod amhenodol, ac ni allwn i awgrymu i'r Cynulliad, mewn unrhyw fodd, y dylai'r Cynulliad bleidleisio o blaid hynny.