English: Diolch, Lywydd. I know that time is short, but can I begin by saying that there are some myths that need to be dispelled here? First of all, this is not a debate about whether the referendum result should be respected. It's going to happen. That's it. The question is settled. But let's not pretend that there was an overwhelming vote to leave the EU. It was 52 per cent. Let's not pretend that the only reason why people voted to leave was immigration. As many people talked to me about immigration as talked to me about wanting to give David Cameron a kicking. That was one of the reasons that I heard on the doorstep. I remember, in 1997, this place was established on a similar percentage of the vote. There were those in the Conservative Party who wanted to ignore the referendum at the time. John Redwood, when he was asked about the Scottish referendum result, which was 3:1 in favour, argued that devolution should not happen in Scotland because the majority of the electorate had not voted in favour. We see now, of course, the double standards that he has. Because I fought tooth and nail against any idea that the referendum result then, no matter how narrow it was, should be ignored, I cannot advocate ignoring the result of last year's referendum, close though it was. So, that issue is resolved. But, to suggest that somehow it was a vote for a hard Brexit in the absence of any specific question is the same as suggesting that the vote in 1997 was a vote for independence. Clearly, it was for a limited form, then, of self-government. The lesson to remember is this, and Dai Lloyd made reference to this: those of us who were on the winning side in 1997 worked to win people over after that, which is why more than 80 per cent of the people of Wales support devolution now. We did not abuse them. We did not suggest they were traitors. We did not say they were stupid. We worked with them. And that is a lesson for the hard Brexiters, not those in this Chamber, but those outside who think that the best way to get their way is through abuse. In terms of some of the other points that were made, it's perfectly right that there should be work towards a UK framework for some areas, such as agriculture. It may well make sense. Animal health - it makes sense to have a common policy across GB. But the point is this: those frameworks should be agreed not imposed by one Government over the other three. Agriculture is devolved. Full stop. End of story. People voted in 2011 that that should be the case by 2:1 in a referendum. The UK Government has no right to change that. When those powers come back from Brussels, they come here. They do not stop in London. It's hugely important that those discussions about frameworks do continue and that is something that we, of course, would want to see happen. Can I remind those who claim that the Norwegian model was not on the table in the referendum that Arron Banks supported it, Daniel Hannan supported it and the 'Daily Express' supported it? So, the Norwegian model was very much on the table at that time, which is why I went there. It is a model that we can look at. It is not perfect. Norway is a prosperous country - half of the UK's oil comes from Norway - and it is happy to be part of the single market even though it's not part of the EU. I heard what Neil Hamilton had to say. He puts much faith in a trade deal with the US President, who was elected on a protectionist mandate, who has said that every country in the world has taken advantage of the US. I don't share his optimism that we will have a free trade deal with America that is anything other than good for America. That is what he was elected to do. We can't complain about that. He is a protectionist President. So, I don't share his optimism in that regard. I listened carefully to his plan. He spoke for exactly 11 minutes and 30 seconds and I heard nothing. Those days must go. We must start hearing more from those who are on the harder side of Brexit. I listened carefully to Andrew R.T. Davies. I have to say to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, after the referendum, he was in the media suggesting that some areas should be given back to Westminster. If he was misquoted, he should have dealt with that in the media. He was saying that agriculture and regional economic development should be run from Westminster. That is not what the people of Wales voted for. [Interruption.] Of course.
Welsh: Diolch, Lywydd. Gwn fod amser yn brin, ond a gaf i ddechrau drwy ddweud bod rhai mythau sydd angen eu chwalu yma? Yn gyntaf oll, nid yw hon yn ddadl ynghylch a ddylai canlyniad y refferendwm gael ei barchu. Mae'n mynd i ddigwydd. Dyna ni. Mae'r cwestiwn wedi ei setlo. Ond gadewch i ni beidio ag esgus bod pleidlais o fwyafrif llethol i adael yr UE. Roedd yn 52 y cant. Gadewch i ni beidio ag esgus mai'r unig reswm pam y pleidleisiodd pobl i adael oedd mewnfudo. Siaradodd yr un faint o bobl â mi am fewnfudo ag a siaradodd â mi am eisiau rhoi cic i David Cameron. Dyna oedd un o'r rhesymau a glywais ar garreg y drws. Rwy'n cofio, ym 1997,cafodd y lle hwn ei sefydlu ar ganran tebyg o'r bleidlais. Roedd rhai yn y Blaid Geidwadol a oedd eisiau anwybyddu'r refferendwm ar y pryd. Dadleuodd John Redwood, pan gafodd ei holi am ganlyniad refferendwm yr Alban, sef 3: 1 o blaid, na ddylai datganoli ddigwydd yn yr Alban gan nad oedd y rhan fwyaf o'r etholwyr wedi pleidleisio o blaid. Gwelwn yn awr, wrth gwrs, y safonau dwbl sydd ganddo. Gan fy mod i wedi ymladd yn frwd yn erbyn unrhyw syniad bod canlyniad y refferendwm, bryd hynny, ni waeth pa mor gul yr oedd, yn cael ei anwybyddu, ni allaf ddadlau dros anwybyddu canlyniad y refferendwm y llynedd, er mor agos yr oedd. Felly, mae'r mater hwnnw wedi ei ddatrys. Ond, mae awgrymu ei bod rhywsut yn bleidlais ar gyfer Brexit caled yn absenoldeb unrhyw gwestiwn penodol yr un fath ag awgrymu bod y bleidlais ym 1997 yn bleidlais dros annibyniaeth. Yn amlwg, roedd yn bleidlais am ffurf gyfyngedig, bryd hynny, o hunanlywodraeth. Y wers i'w chofio yw hyn, ac fe wnaeth Dai Lloyd gyfeirio at hyn: gwnaeth y rhai ohonom a oedd ar yr ochr fuddugol ym 1997 weithio i ennill pobl drosodd ar ôl hynny, a dyna pam mae mwy na 80 y cant o bobl Cymru yn cefnogi datganoli bellach. Wnaethom ni ddim eu sarhau. Doedden ni ddim yn awgrymu eu bod yn fradwyr. Wnaethom ni ddim dweud eu bod yn dwp. Buom yn gweithio gyda nhw. Ac mae honno'n wers i'r Brexiteers caled, nid y rhai yn y Siambr hon, ond rhai y tu allan sy'n credu mai'r ffordd orau i gael eu ffordd yw drwy sarhau. O ran rhai o'r pwyntiau eraill a wnaethpwyd, mae'n hollol iawn y dylai fod gwaith tuag at fframwaith y DU ar gyfer rhai meysydd, megis amaethyddiaeth. Mae'n bosib iawn ei fod yn gwneud synnwyr. Iechyd anifeiliaid - mae'n gwneud synnwyr i gael polisi cyffredin ar draws Prydain Fawr. Ond y pwynt yw hyn: dylai'r fframweithiau hynny gael eu cytuno nid eu gorfodi gan un Llywodraeth dros y tair arall. Mae amaethyddiaeth wedi'i ddatganoli. Atalnod llawn. Diwedd y stori. Pleidleisiodd pobl yn 2011 dros hynny o 2: 1 mewn refferendwm. Nid oes gan Lywodraeth y DU unrhyw hawl i newid hynny. Pan ddaw'r pwerau hynny yn ôl o Frwsel, maent yn dod yma. Nid ydynt yn aros yn Llundain. Mae'n hynod bwysig bod y trafodaethau hynny am fframweithiau yn parhau ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth y byddem ni, wrth gwrs, eisiau ei weld yn digwydd. A gaf i atgoffa'r rhai sy'n honni nad oedd model Norwy ar y bwrdd yn y refferendwm bod Arron Banks yn ei gefnogi, Daniel Hannan ei gefnogi a'r 'Daily Express' yn ei gefnogi? Felly, roedd model Norwy yn fawr iawn ar y bwrdd ar y pryd, a dyna pam yr es i yno. Mae'n fodel y gallwn edrych arno. Nid yw'n berffaith. Mae Norwy yn wlad ffyniannus - mae hanner olew y DU yn dod o Norwy - ac mae'n hapus i fod yn rhan o'r farchnad sengl er nad yw'n rhan o'r UE. Clywais yr hyn oedd gan Neil Hamilton i'w ddweud. Mae'n rhoi llawer o ffydd mewn cytundeb masnach gyda Llywydd yr Unol Daleithiau, a etholwyd ar fandad gwarchodol, sydd wedi dweud bod pob gwlad yn y byd wedi manteisio ar yr Unol Daleithiau. Nid wyf yn rhannu ei optimistiaeth y bydd gennym fargen masnach rydd gydag America sydd yn unrhyw beth ond da i America. Dyna'r hyn y cafodd ei ethol i'w wneud. Ni allwn gwyno am hynny. Mae'n Llywydd gwarchodol. Felly, nid wyf yn rhannu ei optimistiaeth yn hynny o beth. Gwrandewais yn astud ar ei gynllun. Siaradodd am union 11 munud a 30 eiliad ac ni chlywais unrhyw beth. Rhaid i'r dyddiau hynny fynd. Mae'n rhaid i ni ddechrau clywed mwy gan y rhai sydd ar ochr galetach Brexit. Gwrandewais yn ofalus ar Andrew R. T. Davies. Mae'n rhaid i mi ddweud wrth arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, ar ôl y refferendwm, yr oedd yn y cyfryngau yn awgrymu y dylai rhai meysydd gael eu rhoi yn ôl i San Steffan. Os cafodd ei gamddyfynnu, dylai fod wedi ymdrin â hynny yn y cyfryngau. Roedd yn dweud y dylai amaethyddiaeth a datblygu economaidd rhanbarthol fod yn gyfrifoldeb San Steffan. Nid dyna beth y pleidleisiodd pobl Cymru amdano. [Torri ar draws.] Wrth gwrs.