English: It's rather strange, Llywydd, that I find myself standing up to almost defend the Prime Minister against attacks made on her rather than on me because it was all about what was happening in Westminster. I have to say that what is noticeable about Brexit is that those who smashed the window have run away and left those who didn't want the window smashed to put it back together again while claiming that they are doing it in the wrong way. I did notice that those people who said it will be the easiest trade deal ever and all that nonsense that we heard that hasn't come about - . And what is the narrative now? That the EU is being unreasonable. Well, the EU is looking after its own interests. And this idea that the EU needs us more than we need them, the EU doesn't see it that way at all, or not as the EU-27. Their view is, 'Well, we'd like to give the UK a good deal, but, actually, there's a whole world out there that we can talk to and we can trade with - big blocks that we can sell our goods to.' Now, he asks fairly what's been done in the last two years. Well, when you have David Davis and Boris Johnson in place for so long, the question is answered. I'm not sure what David Davis did, if I'm honest with you, in terms of moving this forward. Boris Johnson seemed to think that any problem could be resolved by a quip of some kind. His greatest contribution to the job of Foreign Secretary was to jeopardise the release of a British national in Iran because of something that he said. So, she did not choose her personnel wisely when it came to her Brexit Secretary and her Foreign Secretary. And here we go again: 'This is treachery by an establishment.' No evidence at all to back that up, despite the fact that there are many leavers, of course. David Davis was a leaver, Dominic Raab was a leaver, and yet, despite the fact that he was the one who put this agreement before the Cabinet and then decided to leave, and David Davis, a leaver - he was the Brexit Secretary - are they part of the establishment that was so treacherous? And here we have the start of a narrative: 'All this would be fine if it wasn't for traitors in our own ranks.' The stab in the back theory. Now, where have we heard that one before? The British people have been stabbed in the back by people who sold them down the river. That's familiar ground from another country nearly 100 years ago. Perhaps we see now why Tommy Robinson will be so welcome in UKIP because of the historical parallels that seem to be playing out. And when it comes to free trade agreements, I have to say to the Member: a free trade agreement with America is no substitute for having a good agreement with Europe. It's further away and it's a smaller market. India is further away. Australia is both a small market and even further away. None of these markets will make up for the European market. And I have to say to him: these countries, India particularly, will say, 'If you want a free trade agreement with us, we want our people to be able to move and to arrive in Britain without a visa.' They're not going to accept visa restrictions at all. They will want something close to freedom of movement for their own people, and then what's he going to say at that point? He's opposed to freedom of movement for European nationals. Does that mean he supports it for Australian nationals, for Indian nationals, for American nationals? That's something that UKIP have never addressed. And then, of course, finally, he came up with a comment that belies, really, the sort of raging free-marketism of many in UKIP. He said that we would lose out on the opportunity for cheaper cars, cheaper food, cheaper clothing and cheaper footwear. What of the British workers that work in those sectors? What does it mean for our farmers if we allow in inferior - inferior - food products to undercut what they produce? What does it mean for our car workers if we allow in cars that are produced at a much lower cost that don't meet our current environmental standards? His view seems to be: let's cut the standards right down and let them in, undercut our own workers. Clothing, footwear - all these industries that are important to Britain. I do not believe that those who voted 'leave' voted 'leave' to jeopardise their own jobs. Many, many people said to me that one of the reasons why they were voting 'leave' was because they felt that their jobs were insecure and their lives were insecure. They will never vote for anything that looks like a laissez-faire, low-regulation economy. That's exactly what - I was going to say the leader of UKIP, but it's a rotating chair - the Member has said. That is not, I believe, what the British people voted for, it's not the vision that they voted for. I believe what they want is a sensible Brexit that protects their interests and the interests of Wales.
Welsh: Mae'n eithaf rhyfedd, Llywydd, y caf fy hun yn codi bron iawn i amddiffyn Prif Weinidog y DU rhag yr ymosodiadau a wnaed arni yn hytrach nag arnaf i am fod hyn i gyd ynghylch yr hyn oedd yn digwydd yn San Steffan. Mae'n rhaid imi ddweud mai'r hyn sy'n amlwg am Brexit yw bod y rhai sydd wedi chwalu'r ffenest wedi rhedeg i ffwrdd a gadael i'r rhai nad oedd eisiau chwalu'r ffenest i'w rhoi yn ôl at ei gilydd gan hawlio eu bod yn gwneud hynny yn y ffordd anghywir. Fe wnes i sylwi bod y bobl hynny a ddywedodd y byddai hyn y fargen fasnach hawsaf erioed a'r holl ffwlbri yna a glywsom ni, nid yw hynny wedi digwydd - . A beth yw'r gân yn awr? Bod yr UE yn afresymol. Wel, mae'r UE yn gofalu am ei buddiannau ei hun. A'r syniad yma bod yr UE ein hangen ni yn fwy nag y mae arnom ni eu hangen nhw, nid yw'r UE yn ei gweld hi felly o gwbl, neu nid yw 27 gwlad yr UE. Eu barn nhw yw, 'Wel, fe hoffem ni roi bargen dda i'r DU, ond, mewn gwirionedd, mae yna fyd cyfan draw yn y fan acw y gallwn ni siarad ag ef ac y gallwn ni fasnachu ag ef - blociau mawr y gallwn ni werthu ein nwyddau iddyn nhw.' Nawr, mae'n gofyn yn deg beth sydd wedi'i wneud yn y ddwy flynedd diwethaf. Wel, pan fo gennych chi David Davis a Boris Johnson yn eu swyddi ers cyhyd, mae'r cwestiwn wedi ei ateb. Nid wyf yn siŵr beth wnaeth David Davis, os wyf yn onest gyda chi, o ran symud hyn ymlaen. Roedd hi'n ymddangos fod Boris Johnson yn credu y gellid datrys unrhyw broblem gyda sylw bachog o ryw fath. Ei gyfraniad mwyaf i'r swydd o Ysgrifennydd Tramor oedd peryglu rhyddhau dinesydd Prydeinig yn Iran oherwydd rhywbeth a ddywedodd. Felly, ni ddewisodd hi ei phersonél yn ddoeth o ran ei Hysgrifennydd Brexit a'i Hysgrifennydd Tramor. A dyma ni unwaith eto: 'Dyma frad gan y sefydliad.' Nid oes gronyn o dystiolaeth i ategu hynny, er gwaethaf y ffaith bod llawer eisiau gadael, wrth gwrs. Roedd David Davis eisiau gadael, roedd Dominic Raab eisiau gadael, ac eto, er gwaetha'r ffaith mai ef oedd yr un a roddodd y cytundeb hwn gerbron y Cabinet ac yna penderfynu gadael, a David Davis, oedd eisiau gadael - ef oedd Ysgrifennydd Brexit - a ydyn nhw'n rhan o'r sefydliad a oedd yn mor fradwrus? Ac yma mae gennym ni ddechrau naratif: 'byddai hyn i gyd yn iawn oni bai am y bradwyr yn ein rhengoedd ein hunain.' Y ddamcaniaeth cyllell yn y cefn. Nawr, lle glywsom ni hynny o'r blaen? Mae pobl Prydain wedi cael eu trywanu yn eu cefnau gan bobl a'u gwerthodd yn rhad. Clywyd rhywbeth tebyg mewn gwlad arall bron i gan mlynedd yn ôl. Efallai y gwelwn ni yn awr pam fydd cymaint o groeso i Tommy Robinson yn UKIP oherwydd y gyfatebiaeth hanesyddol ymddangosiadol. Ac o ran cytundebau masnach rydd, mae'n rhaid imi ddweud wrth yr Aelod: nid oes modd ffeirio cytundeb da ag Ewrop am gytundeb masnach rydd ag America. Mae ymhellach i ffwrdd ac mae'n farchnad lai. Mae India ymhellach i ffwrdd. Mae Awstralia yn farchnad fechan a hyd yn oed ymhellach i ffwrdd. Ni fydd unrhyw un o'r marchnadoedd hyn yn gwneud iawn am y farchnad Ewropeaidd. Ac mae'n rhaid imi ddweud wrtho: bydd y gwledydd hyn, India yn arbennig, yn dweud, 'Os ydych chi eisiau cytundeb masnach rydd gyda ni, rydym ni eisiau i'n pobl allu symud ac i allu cyrraedd Prydain heb fisa.' Nid ydyn nhw'n mynd i dderbyn cyfyngiadau fisa o gwbl. Bydd arnyn nhw eisiau rhywbeth sy'n agos at ryddid i symud ar gyfer eu pobl eu hunain, ac wedyn beth mae'n mynd i ddweud bryd hynny? Mae'n gwrthwynebu rhyddid i symud i wladolion Ewropeaidd. A yw hynny'n golygu ei fod o blaid hynny i wladolion Awstralia, i wladolion yr India, i wladolion Americanaidd? Mae hynny'n rhywbeth nad yw UKIP erioed wedi rhoi sylw iddo. Ac wedyn, wrth gwrs, yn olaf, fe wnaeth sylw sy'n celu, mewn gwirionedd, y math o syniadau am ryddid y farchnad sy'n rhemp yn UKIP. Dywedodd y byddem ni'n colli'r cyfle i gael ceir rhatach, bwyd rhatach, dillad rhatach ac esgidiau rhatach. Beth am weithwyr Prydain sy'n gweithio yn y sectorau hynny? Beth mae'n ei olygu i'n ffermwyr os caniatawn i gynnyrch israddol - cynhyrchion bwyd israddol - danseilio beth maen nhw'n ei gynhyrchu? Beth mae'n ei olygu i'n gweithwyr ceir os ydym ni'n caniatáu i geir ddod i mewn sy'n cael eu cynhyrchu am gost is o lawer ac nad ydyn nhw'n bodloni'r safonau amgylcheddol sydd gennym ni ar hyn o bryd? Ymddengys mai ei farn yw: Gadewch inni dorri'r safonau cywir at yr asgwrn a gadewch iddyn nhw ddod i mewn, tanseilio ein gweithwyr ein hunain. Dillad, esgidiau - yr holl ddiwydiannau hyn sy'n bwysig i Brydain. Nid wyf yn credu bod y rhai a bleidleisiodd 'gadael' wedi pleidleisio 'gadael' i beryglu eu swyddi eu hunain. Dywedodd llawer iawn, iawn o bobl wrthyf mai un o'r rhesymau pam roedden nhw yn pleidleisio 'gadael' oedd oherwydd eu bod yn teimlo bod eu swyddi yn ansicr a'u bywydau yn ansicr. Fyddan nhw byth yn pleidleisio am unrhyw beth sy'n edrych fel economi laissez-faire, rheoliad isel. Dyna'n union beth - roeddwn yn mynd i ddweud arweinydd UKIP, ond mae'r awenau yn newid dwylo - mae'r Aelod wedi dweud. Nid dyna, rwy'n credu, y pleidleisiodd pobl Prydain drosto, nid dyna'r weledigaeth y gwnaethon nhw bleidleisio o'i phlaid. Rwy'n credu mai'r hyn y maen nhw ei eisiau yw Brexit synhwyrol sy'n diogelu eu buddiannau a buddiannau Cymru.