English: Again, thank you very much for those thoughtful questions, some of which I will be able to comment on to some degree, but not able to give you a full answer on, because there are many unknowns. The nature of the intervention is really as I have set out. On what will be my intentions in the intervention, it will be to make representations about the role of Parliament in determining any changes to the devolution settlement, it'll be the specific implications of the UK Government's proposed use of prerogative powers to bring about changes to constitutional arrangements, and it'll be in relation to the engagement of the devolved institutions to ensure that the interests of Wales are fully taken into account. Those are the underlying principles of the intervention. Now, as this is a matter of ongoing litigation, my proposed detailed arguments are being developed on a comprehensive evaluation of the court judgment. I'm limited in what I'm able to say concerning the full details of the proposed involvement, and, if my application to intervene is agreed, further details of the case will be made available in due course. As part of the process, it will be necessary to file our own details of the case, of the issues that we intend to raise within the Supreme Court that we are concerned about that relate to the judgment or to any other matters that the Supreme Court may raise during the course of the hearing. So, it will be very much an ongoing process, but we are setting out the principles, which are, essentially, that there is a constitutional settlement within the United Kingdom, that the impact of triggering article 50 does have a significant impact on that, that it is the role of Parliament to trigger by means of the exercise of its legislative powers. There is an issue, as you raise, indeed, as to whether this could be done by a formal vote of Parliament or whether it would actually need to be legislation. That, of course, is one of the issues that will be put to the Supreme Court in order for guidance, depending upon what the outcome of its actual judgment is. There are constitutional experts who've expressed a variety of views on that. And, of course, there is always the potential that the Supreme Court will overturn the High Court judgment. That having been said, as I have outlined the constitutional legal position, I am confident that that is a solid position that certainly gives a very solid basis for us to actually be present and to intervene. With regard to the issues of Sewel - well, of course, Sewel is a non-justiciable convention. But, as with all constitutional law, in an environment where we do not have a written constitution, it is more than just a custom or an agreement - it has a constitutional status. The position that's been outlined by the First Minister is very much one that, where there are going to be impacts on the devolution settlement, then that is a matter that should come before this Assembly. I think the First Minister's also made it very clear how the Prime Minister's position will be considerably strengthened by having the assent and the support of the devolved Governments. With regard to - I think it was the article 9 point; it's really with regard to the role of the court and with regard to legislation per se. As has been made very clear within the judgment itself, the role of the court is to interpret the law. The law, if passed by Parliament, is sovereign. The courts cannot overturn that law - they have no role within that whatsoever - but what the courts do have is the responsibility, the duty, and the role of interpreting the law, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment in the moves towards the Supreme Court.
Welsh: Unwaith eto, diolch yn fawr iawn am y cwestiynau ystyriol hynny. Byddaf yn gallu rhoi sylwadau i ryw raddau ar rai ohonynt, ond ni fyddaf yn gallu rhoi ateb llawn i chi, oherwydd bod llawer o ffactorau anhysbys. Mae natur yr ymyriad yn union fel yr wyf wedi'i nodi. O ran fy ymyriad, bwriadaf gyflwyno sylwadau ynghylch swyddogaeth y Senedd wrth benderfynu ar unrhyw newidiadau i'r setliad datganoli, y goblygiadau penodol i fwriad Llywodraeth y DU i ddefnyddio pwerau uchelfraint i sicrhau newidiadau i drefniadau cyfansoddiadol, a chamau yn gysylltiedig ag ymrwymiad y sefydliadau datganoledig i sicrhau bod buddiannau Cymru yn cael eu hystyried yn llawn. Dyna egwyddorion sylfaenol yr ymyriad. Nawr, gan fod hwn yn fater o ymgyfreitha sy'n parhau, mae fy nadleuon manwl arfaethedig yn cael eu datblygu ar werthusiad cynhwysfawr o'r dyfarniad llys. Rwyf wedi fy nghyfyngu o ran yr hyn y gallaf ei ddweud ynghylch manylion llawn y cyfraniad arfaethedig, ac, os bydd fy nghais i ymyrryd yn cael ei gytuno, bydd rhagor o fanylion am yr achos ar gael maes o law. Fel rhan o'r broses, bydd angen ffeilio ein manylion ein hunain am yr achos, o'r materion yr ydym yn pryderu yn eu cylch y bwriadwn eu codi yn y Goruchaf Lys sy'n ymwneud â'r dyfarniad neu ag unrhyw faterion eraill y gallai'r Goruchaf Lys eu codi yn ystod y gwrandawiad. Felly, bydd yn broses barhaus, ond rydym yn nodi'r egwyddorion, sef, yn y bôn, bod setliad cyfansoddiadol yn y Deyrnas Unedig, bod effaith sbarduno erthygl 50 yn cael effaith sylweddol ar hynny, ac mai swyddogaeth y Senedd yw sbarduno trwy arfer ei phwerau deddfwriaethol. Yn wir, mae yna fater, fel y codwyd gennych, o ran a ellid gwneud hyn drwy bleidlais Seneddol ffurfiol neu a fyddai mewn gwirionedd yn rhaid iddo fod drwy ddeddfwriaeth. Mae hwnnw, wrth gwrs, yn un o'r materion a fydd yn cael eu cyflwyno i'r Goruchaf Lys er mwyn cael cyfarwyddyd arno, yn dibynnu ar beth yw canlyniad ei ddyfarniad mewn gwirionedd. Mae arbenigwyr cyfansoddiadol wedi mynegi amrywiaeth o safbwyntiau ar hynny. Ac, wrth gwrs, mae posibilrwydd bob amser y bydd y Goruchaf Lys yn gwrthdroi dyfarniad yr Uchel Lys. Wedi dweud hynny, fel yr wyf wedi amlinellu'r safbwynt cyfreithiol cyfansoddiadol, rwy'n hyderus bod honno'n safbwynt cadarn sy'n sicr yn rhoi sail gadarn iawn i ni fod yn bresennol ac i ymyrryd. O ran materion Sewel - wel, wrth gwrs, mae Sewel yn gonfensiwn nad oes modd penderfynu arni gan Lys. Ond, fel yn achos pob cyfraith gyfansoddiadol, mewn amgylchedd lle nad oes gennym gyfansoddiad ysgrifenedig, mae'n fwy na dim ond arfer neu gytundeb - mae ganddi statws cyfansoddiadol. Mae'r sefyllfa a amlinellwyd gan y Prif Weinidog yn un sy'n nodi, os bydd unrhyw effaith ar y setliad datganoli, yna mae'n fater a ddylai ddod gerbron y Cynulliad hwn. Rwy'n credu bod y Prif Weinidog hefyd wedi ei gwneud yn glir iawn y bydd sefyllfa'r Prif Weinidog yn cael ei chryfhau yn sylweddol trwy gael cydsyniad a chefnogaeth y Llywodraethau datganoledig. O ran - rwy'n credu mai'r pwynt am erthygl 9 oedd hyn; mewn gwirionedd, mae'n gysylltiedig â swyddogaeth y llys ac yn gysylltiedig â deddfwriaeth fel y cyfryw. Fel yr eglurwyd yn y dyfarniad ei hun, swyddogaeth y llys yw dehongli'r gyfraith. Mae'r gyfraith, os caiff ei phasio gan y Senedd, yn sofran. Ni all y llysoedd wrthdroi y gyfraith honno - nid oes ganddyn nhw unrhyw swyddogaeth yn hynny o gwbl - ond yr hyn sydd gan y llysoedd yw'r cyfrifoldeb, y ddyletswydd, a'r swyddogaeth o ddehongli'r gyfraith, a dyna'n union sy'n digwydd ar hyn o bryd yn y camau tuag at y Goruchaf Lys.