English: Thank you for those questions and suggestions, some of which, I have to say, were contradictory - and some were confusing. But, just dealing initially with the issue of the independence of the judiciary - which, I'm glad to say, I think the Member was saying he does support - it is a good idea, since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, for example, states very clearly that 'the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers of the Crown and all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary'. That is the statutory position. So, you will not be surprised - and I hope the Member will then disassociate himself from the comments that were made by his acting leader, Nigel Farage, who said that they would be leading a march of 100,000 people to the Supreme Court and people were so angry that there might well be violence arising as a consequence. That, all I can see, is an attempt to intimidate an independent judiciary. I hope he will disassociate himself from any such suggestion, and also disassociate himself from the statement that was made by the UKIP leadership contender Suzanne Evans, who suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the article 50 case. She warned about judges intervening and the conflicts of interest and, basically, made it very clear that, unless judges agree with UKIP, they would want to see mechanisms for them to be actually sacked. It seems to me to be a complete contradiction that what actually happened during the referendum, which was partly about the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament - but it appears to be the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary, so long as you actually agree with us, otherwise, it can actually be bypassed. I hope you will make very clear in statements you subsequently make that you actually disassociate yourself from those inflammatory comments that have been made. The judgment will not be - whatever decision the Supreme Court comes to - it will not be anything to do with the European referendum debate, the merits or demerits otherwise. I've said that very clearly in the oral statement I've made. It was made very clear in the judge. This is about what is the legal, democratic, constitutional mechanism for actually triggering article 50, the consequence of which - as a consequence of the statement by the UK Government that triggering article 50 is an irreversible process - means that, at the end of that process, statutory legislation would actually become defunct. It was around the issue of what the mechanism to supplant primary legislation that Parliament has actually created and how can that be done - can it be done by an executive or can it be done by Parliament itself? The Supreme Court has accepted the arguments that were made that this can only be done by Parliament itself because of the constitutional principles that have been established over 300 years that are actually about the protection of the will of the people and preventing usurpation of our democratic institutions.
Welsh: Diolch i chi am y cwestiynau a'r awgrymiadau hynny, ac mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud, bod rhai ohonynt yn gwrth-ddweud ei gilydd - a rhai ohonynt yn ddryslyd. Ond, dim ond i ymdrin i ddechrau â mater annibyniaeth y farnwriaeth - yr oedd yr Aelod, rwy'n falch o hynny, yn dweud ei fod yn ei gefnogi - mae'n syniad da, gan fod Deddf Diwygio Cyfansoddiadol 2005, er enghraifft, yn datgan yn glir iawn ei bod yn ofynnol i'r Arglwydd Ganghellor, Gweinidogion eraill y Goron a phawb sy'n gyfrifol am faterion sy'n ymwneud â'r farnwriaeth, neu fel arall i weinyddu cyfiawnder, gynnal annibyniaeth barhaus y farnwriaeth. Dyna'r sefyllfa statudol. Felly, ni fyddwch yn synnu - ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelod wedyn yn datgysylltu ei hun oddi wrth y sylwadau a wnaed gan ei arweinydd dros dro, Nigel Farage, a ddywedodd y byddent yn arwain gorymdaith o 100,000 o bobl i'r Goruchaf Lys a bod pobl mor ddig y gallai trais godi yn hawdd o ganlyniad i hynny. Mae hynny, hyd y gallaf i ei weld, yn ymgais i fygwth barnwriaeth annibynnol. Rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yn datgysylltu ei hun oddi wrth unrhyw awgrym o'r fath, a hefyd yn datgysylltu ei hun oddi wrth y datganiad a wnaed gan Suzanne Evans sy'n cystadlu i fod yn arweinydd UKIP, a awgrymodd y dylai barnwyr wynebu'r posibilrwydd o gael eu diswyddo gan ASau yn sgil achos erthygl 50. Rhybuddiodd am farnwyr yn ymyrryd a'r gwrthdaro buddiannau ac, yn y bôn, nododd yn glir iawn, oni bai bod barnwyr yn cytuno ag UKIP, y byddent mewn gwirionedd yn dymuno gweld ffyrdd o'u diswyddo. Mae'n ymddangos i mi yn wrthddywediad llwyr bod yr hyn a ddigwyddodd, mewn gwirionedd, yn ystod y refferendwm, a oedd yn rhannol ynglŷn â'r cysyniad o sofraniaeth y Senedd - ond mae'n ymddangos ei fod ynglŷn â sofraniaeth y Senedd ac annibyniaeth y farnwriaeth, cyn belled â'ch bod mewn gwirionedd yn cytuno â ni, fel arall, gellir ei osgoi mewn gwirionedd. Rwy'n gobeithio y byddwch yn nodi'n glir iawn yn eich datganiadau ar ôl hyn eich bod mewn gwirionedd yn datgysylltu eich hun oddi wrth y sylwadau ymfflamychol hynny sydd wedi cael eu gwneud. Ni fydd gan y dyfarniad - beth bynnag fydd penderfyniad y Goruchaf Lys - unrhyw beth i'w wneud â dadl y refferendwm Ewropeaidd, y manteision neu'r anfanteision fel arall. Rwyf wedi dweud hynny yn glir iawn yn y datganiad llafar a wneuthum. Fe'i gwnaed yn glir iawn yn y dyfarniad. Mae hyn yn ymwneud â beth yw'r dull cyfreithiol, democrataidd, cyfansoddiadol ar gyfer sbarduno erthygl 50 mewn gwirionedd, o ganlyniad i'r datganiad gan Lywodraeth y DU bod sbarduno erthygl 50 yn broses nad oes modd ei gwrthdroi - sy'n golygu, ar ddiwedd y broses honno, y byddai deddfwriaeth statudol mewn gwirionedd wedi'i dirymu. Roedd yn ymwneud â'r mater o beth fyddai'r dull o ddisodli deddfwriaeth sylfaenol yr oedd y Senedd wedi'i chreu mewn gwirionedd a sut y gellid gwneud hynny - a ellid ei wneud gan weithrediaeth neu a ellid ei wneud gan y Senedd ei hun? Mae'r Goruchaf Lys wedi derbyn y dadleuon a gyflwynwyd mai dim ond y Senedd ei hun all wneud hyn, oherwydd yr egwyddorion cyfansoddiadol sydd wedi'u sefydlu dros 300 mlynedd sydd mewn gwirionedd yn ymwneud ag amddiffyn ewyllys y bobl ac atal ein sefydliadau democrataidd rhag cael eu camfeddiannu.