English: Let's try and deconstruct a stream of consciousness. Well, let's start with the industrial change that he said occurred, under his watch, actually, a lot of it. In a sensible country it would have been understood that there were going to be job losses in coal and steel. Steel employed a lot of people, probably more than was needed. But in a sensible country, plans would have been laid out to re-employ people in good jobs, but that's not what happened. What happened was that people were laid off in their thousands on a single day and told, 'That's it, there's no job for you'. That's why unemployment went up and that's why our GDP declined, because of that double whammy. That wasn't to do with industrial change on its own. That was a deliberate policy by a Government that didn't care if people were made redundant and where they went after that. I agree with him about the need to create an entrepreneurial culture and that's what the document shows. But it's hugely important - he mentioned the Circuit of Wales - that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. You know, LG was one of the greatest mistakes that the WDA actually - . They'd had a good track record until then, but it was one of the greatest mistakes, in hindsight, that happened. And we've got to be very careful about what we support and what we don't. He talks about what's happening 60 miles to the east with James Dyson, of course. His argument about the EU seems to be about the regulation of vacuum cleaners, as far as I can tell. It quite clearly is a single market. Where does he manufacture? He doesn't manufacture in the UK does he? So, there are issues there. If he is that patriotic, perhaps he should base everything that he does within the UK itself. With regard to the regulatory burden that he talks about, what is it? If he says there is a regulatory burden, it would be interesting to know where he sees those burdens are, because he gives no examples. He talks about a tax burden. He gives an example of business rates. We are, of course, looking at how we can put in place a permanent system of relief in terms of small business rates. We are looking at how that can be done with a view to implementing that. He says that our attitude is wrong. Well, I can only refer - . I could go through a whole list of things, but I will refer him to the words that were used by Aston Martin. They came to Wales not because there was more money on the table but because of the pride and professionalism of the Welsh Government. That's why they came to Wales and that can be repeated up and down Wales in terms of the jobs we have brought to Wales. He talks of Brexit. He recognises there are challenges. Indeed, there are challenges that Brexit brings. The single market undoubtedly does exist, because it employs a common tariff, and as a result of that, in order to get into that market, we all have to pay the tariffs or find a way of agreement to avoid those tariffs being paid. And besides, if you have tariffs, you have a hard border in Ireland. There's no avoiding it, because you cannot have a system of tariffs and then say, 'Incidentally, we have a land border with the EU where there are no customs controls at all and no tariffs are payable.' So, he doesn't want a hard border - fine, I accept that - but you can't have tariffs and not have a hard border; the two run together with all the consequences - tragic consequences, actually - that that might potentially bring. If I can just deconstruct an argument he used as well early on. He said, 'Well, it doesn't matter about tariffs because the exchange rate has resolved that issue'. Well, of course, the drop in the pound means that goods from the European Union are now more expensive in the UK. Put tariffs on top of that and they're even more expensive and they're paid for by the consumer. One of the things I could never work out in the conversations I had with David Davis some months ago was that he kept on saying, 'Well, tariffs can provide us with a pot of money that we can use to support business.' Yes, but they're paid by the consumer. It's Joe Public that pays the tariffs, not businesses. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to those who buy the product that carries the tariff upon it. So, it's hard to see how exchange rates can overcome the problem if tariffs are imposed. Surely we want to see a world where, instead of seeing the UK taking a market of 400 million people and wanting to see tariffs imposed on its goods going into the market - surely nobody wants to see that happening. So, there's much about what he said that I cannot accept. He says that I defend the indefensible. I have to say to him I'm more than happy today to defend and advocate the very defensible.
Welsh: Gadewch i ni geisio dadansoddi llif ymwybod. Wel, gadewch i ni ddechrau gyda'r newid diwydiannol y dywedodd ef a ddigwyddodd, o dan ei oruchwyliaeth ef, mewn gwirionedd, lawer ohono. Byddai gwlad synhwyrol wedi deall y byddai swyddi'n cael eu colli ym maes glo a dur. Roedd y diwydiant dur yn cyflogi llawer o bobl, mwy nag yr oedd eu hangen, mae'n debyg. Ond mewn gwlad synhwyrol, byddai cynlluniau wedi'u sefydlu i ail-gyflogi pobl mewn swyddi da, ond nid dyna a ddigwyddodd. Yr hyn a ddigwyddodd oedd diswyddo miloedd o bobl ar un diwrnod a'u bod yn cael gwybod, 'Dyna ni, nid oes swydd i chi'. Dyna pam y cynyddodd diweithdra a dyna pam y gostyngodd ein cynnyrch domestig gros, oherwydd yr ergyd ddeuol honno. Nid oedd hynny'n ymwneud â newid diwydiannol ar ei ben ei hun. Roedd hynny'n bolisi bwriadol gan Lywodraeth nad oedd yn poeni pe bai pobl yn cael eu diswyddo a lle y byddan nhw'n mynd ar ôl hynny. Rwy'n cytuno ag ef am yr angen i greu diwylliant entrepreneuraidd a dyna beth mae'r ddogfen yn ei ddangos. Ond mae'n hynod bwysig - soniodd am Gylchffordd Cymru - nad ydym yn ailadrodd camgymeriadau'r gorffennol. LG, gwyddoch chi, oedd un o'r camgymeriadau mwyaf y gwnaeth Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru mewn gwirionedd - . Roedd ganddyn nhw enw da tan hynny, ond hwn oedd un o'r camgymeriadau mwyaf a ddigwyddodd, o edrych yn ôl. Ac mae'n rhaid i ni fod yn ofalus iawn ynglŷn â'r hyn yr ydym ni'n ei gefnogi a'r hyn nad ydym ni'n ei gefnogi. Mae'n sôn am yr hyn sy'n digwydd 60 milltir i'r dwyrain gyda James Dyson, wrth gwrs. Ymddengys fod ei ddadl ef am yr UE yn ymwneud â rheoleiddio sugnwyr llwch, hyd y gwelaf i. Mae'n eithaf amlwg mai marchnad sengl ydyw. Ble mae'n gweithgynhyrchu? Nid yw'n gweithgynhyrchu yn y DU, nac ydy? Felly, mae problemau yn y fan honno. Os yw mor wladgarol â hynny, efallai y dylai leoli popeth y mae'n ei wneud yn y DU ei hun. O ran y baich rheoleiddiol y mae'n sôn amdano, beth yw hwnnw? Os yw'n dweud bod baich rheoleiddiol, byddai'n ddiddorol gwybod lle y mae'n gweld y beichiau hynny, gan nad yw'n rhoi unrhyw esiamplau. Mae'n sôn am faich treth. Mae'n rhoi enghraifft o ardrethi busnes. Rydym ni, wrth gwrs, yn ystyried sut y gallwn ni sefydlu system ryddhad barhaol o ran ardrethi busnesau bach. Rydym ni'n ystyried sut y gellir gwneud hynny gyda'r bwriad o weithredu hynny. Mae'n dweud bod ein hagwedd yn anghywir. Wel, gallaf ond cyfeirio - . Gallwn i fynd trwy restr lawn o bethau, ond fe'i cyfeiriaf at y geiriau a ddefnyddiwyd gan Aston Martin. Daethon nhw i Gymru, nid oherwydd bod mwy o arian yn cael ei gynnig, ond oherwydd balchder a phroffesiynoldeb Llywodraeth Cymru. Dyna pam y daethon nhw i Gymru a gellir ailadrodd hynny ar hyd a lled Cymru o ran y swyddi yr ydym ni wedi eu denu i Gymru. Mae'n sôn am Brexit. Mae'n cydnabod bod yna heriau. Yn wir, mae heriau yn sgil Brexit. Mae'r farchnad sengl yn sicr yn bodoli, oherwydd ei bod yn defnyddio tariff cyffredin, ac o ganlyniad i hynny, i gael mynediad i'r farchnad honno, mae'n rhaid i bob un ohonom ni dalu'r tariffau neu ddod o hyd i ffordd o gytuno i osgoi talu'r tariffau hynny. A fodd bynnag, os oes gennych chi dariffau, mae gennych chi ffin galed yn Iwerddon. Nid oes unrhyw ffordd o osgoi hynny, oherwydd ni allwch chi gael system o dariffau ac yna dweud 'Gyda llaw, mae gennym ni ffin tir gyda'r UE lle nad oes unrhyw reolau tollau o gwbl nac unrhyw dariffau yn daladwy'. Felly, nid yw eisiau ffin galed - iawn, rwy'n derbyn hynny - ond ni allwch chi gael tariffau a pheidio â chael ffin galed; mae'r ddau yn cyd-fynd â'i gilydd a'r holl ganlyniadau - canlyniadau trasig, mewn gwirionedd - a allai fod o ganlyniad i hynny. Os gaf i hefyd ddadansoddi dadl y defnyddiodd ef yn gynharach. Dywedodd nad oedd ots am dariffau oherwydd bod y gyfradd gyfnewid wedi datrys y mater hwnnw. Wel, wrth gwrs, mae'r gostyngiad yn y bunt yn golygu bod nwyddau o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd bellach yn ddrutach yn y DU. Ychwanegwch dariffau ar ben hynny ac maen nhw'n ddrutach fyth a'r defnyddiwr sy'n talu amdanynt. Un o'r pethau na allwn ni byth ei ddeall yn y sgyrsiau a gefais gyda David Davis rai misoedd yn ôl oedd ei fod yn parhau i ddweud y gall tariffau roi pot o arian i ni y gallwn ni ei ddefnyddio i gefnogi busnes. Iawn, ond maen nhw'n cael eu talu gan y defnyddiwr. Y dyn cyffredin sy'n talu'r tariffau, nid y busnesau. Yn y pen draw, mae'r gost yn cael ei throsglwyddo i'r rhai sy'n prynu'r cynnyrch y mae tariff arno. Felly, mae'n anodd gweld sut y gall cyfraddau cyfnewid oresgyn y broblem os gorfodir tariffau. Siawns ein bod yn dymuno gweld byd lle, yn hytrach na gweld y DU yn cymryd marchnad o 400 miliwn o bobl ac eisiau gweld tariffau yn cael eu gorfodi ar eu nwyddau sy'n mynd i mewn i'r farchnad - siawns nad oes neb eisiau gweld hynny yn digwydd. Felly, mae llawer o'r hyn a ddywedodd na allaf ei dderbyn. Dywed fy mod i'n amddiffyn yr anniffynadwy. Mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud wrtho, rwy'n fwy na pharod heddiw i amddiffyn ac eirioli dros yr hyn y gellir ei amddiffyn yn fawr iawn.