English: Can I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments? Can I say to him: I listened to what he said about looking to come to a common position, but it would certainly help me if I were to understand what his position is on some of the more fundamental aspects? I know he was somebody who advocated that the UK should leave the EU. That is there for all to see. But does he believe that we should retain full and unfettered access to the single market? Does he reject any idea of tariff or non-tariff barriers? Does he accept that there is a need perhaps to modify freedom of movement, but not to end it completely? What is his view in terms of the border between north and south in Ireland? What is his view then in terms of the maritime border between Wales and Ireland and how that would operate? What is his view on the UK being inside of the customs union or not? If it's outside of the customs union, then that border with the UK and Ireland cannot operate as a seamless border. Does he believe that the transitional arrangements, and they will be needed, should be such that we should consider European Economic Area membership, or European free trade area membership in the short term? All these questions I've not heard him express a view on. I invite him to do so, but what I do know is that he wants to leave the EU and that's clear. What I don't know is what, at the moment, he expects to see in its place. In terms of the White Paper, the White Paper remains the joint paper between ourselves and Plaid Cymru. He asked in particular, 'Where are the points of disagreement?' First of all, tone. What we saw from the Prime Minister before the election was a nationalist tone. I can't describe it in any other way. The kind of tone that we saw from people who said to us that the EU would fall at our feet in order to get a deal. That was false and we see that now. The voters rejected that tone, and now it's time to reset. Firstly, I don't believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that is nonsensical. No deal is the worst deal. Nor do I believe that if there is no transition that is something we should not be afraid of. I cannot understand why there's this desperate need to fall off the edge of a cliff when there is a bridge that can be walked over and that bridge is EEA membership or EFTA membership. I don't agree with her idea that freedom of movement must end completely. Again, you cannot control your borders unless you shut the border with the Republic of Ireland. There's no other way of doing it. And that is something that people have not yet understood. I do not agree then with the position that she's taken on that. I don't agree with her that, somehow, the UK would not be subject to any kind of court outside the UK. Of course it would. Even where the UK was in a position to sign a free trade agreement with another country or trading block, there would still be the need for a court to adjudicate disputes that arise from the free trade agreement; it's bound to happen. And that would mean having a court, at the very least, if there were a free trade agreement at some point with the EU - a court made up possibly of ECJ judges and UK judges, which would constitute the trade court. There is no escaping that. If you want to have a free trade agreement, then you have to accept that other people will also have a view on the way that free trade agreement actually operates. I don't know what the UK's position is any more, if I'm blunt. There has been no engagement with the devolved administrations. We know it can't be the same as it was before the election. We know that the UK's position was that it wished for the issue of the UK's leaving the EU, and the UK's future relationship with the EU, to be dealt with in parallel. The EU's position was that it should be sequential. We hear now that the EU's position has won out - that it will be a sequential negotiation. So, that ground has already been given. What was apparently going to lead to the row of the summer, to quote David Davis, that's not going to happen. I welcome what he said about the JMC, and the fact that it's no longer fit for purpose. But there is another fundamental issue here that I believe the great repeal Bill will try to address, and in a way that is negative. And that is that, where powers in devolved areas return from Brussels, they never arrive in Whitehall, they come straight here. The great repeal Bill, we believe - well, certainly, before the election - was going to try to alter the devolution settlement, without reference to the people of Wales, to stop that happening. That is a fundamental constitutional principle. And we could not accept any situation that would override the clearly expressed view of the people of Wales in 2011. It would be much more sensible if we simply say, 'Okay, those powers are going to the devolved administrations, but let's agree to do nothing with them, until such time as we can implement a common framework.' The alternative is to have that common framework imposed, and that's something we could not agree to, because that would actually overturn a part of the devolution settlement that is absolutely fundamental. We wait to see what the great repeal Bill actually says, but there clearly is an issue here for Wales. The other issue, of course, which I touched on in the statement, though it is fundamental to us, is that, if we look at trade, trade is not devolved. There's no dispute about that. But, if, for example, the UK were to sign a free trade agreement with New Zealand, then there's a massive Welsh interest, because of the New Zealand lamb that would arrive in far greater quantities on the UK market. Clearly, we have a strong view on that - it's not something that we would welcome. So, there has to be a mechanism as well to make sure that the views of the devolved administrations are, at the very least, taken into account when the UK looks to negotiate free trade agreements, where such an agreement would represent a negative disbenefit to countries such as Wales. There will be other examples that affect different parts of different countries in the UK in different ways, but these are fundamental questions that need to be addressed. We have sought to do that, and I'd invite him to express a view on those issues that I've already outlined, in order for us to understand more fully where his thinking has gone since the result of the referendum last year.
Welsh: A gaf i ddiolch i arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig am ei sylwadau? A gaf i ddweud wrtho: gwrandewais ar yr hyn a ddywedodd am geisio cyrraedd safbwynt cyffredin, ond byddai'n sicr yn fy helpu i pe bawn i'n deall beth yw ei safbwynt ar rai o'r agweddau mwyaf sylfaenol? Rwy'n gwybod ei fod yn rhywun a oedd yn credu y dylai'r DU adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae hynny yno i bawb ei weld. Ond a yw'n credu y dylem gadw mynediad llawn a dilyffethair i'r farchnad sengl? A yw'n gwrthod unrhyw syniad o rwystrau â thariff neu heb dariff? A yw'n derbyn bod angen efallai i addasu rhyddid i symud, ond nid ei atal yn gyfan gwbl? Beth yw ei farn am y ffin rhwng y gogledd a'r de yn Iwerddon? Beth yw ei farn, yna, am y ffin forol rhwng Cymru ac Iwerddon a sut y byddai hynny'n gweithredu? Beth yw ei farn am i'r DU fod oddi mewn i'r undeb tollau neu'r tu allan? Os yw y tu allan i'r undeb tollau, ni all y ffin honno â'r DU ac Iwerddon weithredu fel ffin ddi-dor. A yw'n credu y dylai'r trefniadau trosiannol, ac fe fydd eu hangen, olygu y dylem ystyried aelodaeth o'r Ardal Economaidd Ewropeaidd, neu aelodaeth o ardal masnach rydd Ewrop yn y tymor byr? Nid wyf wedi ei glywed yn mynegi barn am ddim un o'r cwestiynau hyn. Rwy'n ei wahodd i wneud hynny, ond yr hyn yr wyf yn ei wybod yw ei fod am adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd ac mae hynny'n glir. Yr hyn nad wyf yn ei wybod yw beth, ar hyn o bryd, y mae'n disgwyl ei weld yn ei le. O ran y Papur Gwyn, y Papur Gwyn yw'r papur ar y cyd rhyngom ni a Phlaid Cymru o hyd. Gofynnodd yn benodol, 'Ble mae'r anghytundeb?' Yn gyntaf oll, tôn. Roedd yr hyn a welsom gan Brif Weinidog y DU cyn yr etholiad yn dôn genedlaetholgar. Ni allaf ei disgrifio mewn unrhyw ffordd arall. Y math o dôn a welsom gan bobl a ddywedodd wrthym y byddai'r UE yn disgyn wrth ein traed er mwyn cael bargen. Roedd hynny'n anghywir ac rydym yn gweld hynny nawr. Gwrthododd y pleidleiswyr y dôn honno, ac nawr mae'n amser ei newid. Yn gyntaf, nid wyf yn credu bod dim bargen yn well na bargen wael. Rwy'n meddwl bod hynny'n hurt. Dim bargen yw'r fargen waethaf. Ac nid wyf yn credu, os nad oes cyfnod pontio, bod hynny'n rhywbeth na ddylem ei ofni. Ni allaf ddeall pam mae'r angen dybryd hwn i ddisgyn oddi ar ymyl clogwyn pan fo pont ar gael inni gerdded drosti, sef aelodaeth o'r AEE neu aelodaeth o EFTA. Nid wyf yn cytuno â'i syniad hi bod yn rhaid i ryddid i symud ddod i ben yn gyfan gwbl. Unwaith eto, ni allwch reoli eich ffiniau heb gau'r ffin â Gweriniaeth Iwerddon. Does dim ffordd arall o wneud hynny. Ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth nad yw pobl wedi'i ddeall eto. Nid wyf yn cytuno felly â'i safbwynt hi ar hynny. Nid wyf yn cytuno â hi, rywsut, na fyddai'r DU yn ddarostyngedig i unrhyw fath o lys y tu allan i'r DU. Wrth gwrs y byddai. Hyd yn oed pan oedd y DU mewn sefyllfa i lofnodi cytundeb masnach rydd gyda gwlad arall neu floc masnachu arall, byddai angen llys o hyd i feirniadu anghydfodau a fyddai'n codi o'r cytundeb masnach rydd; mae'n siŵr o ddigwydd. A byddai hynny'n golygu cael llys, o leiaf, pe bai cytundeb masnach rydd ar ryw adeg â'r UE - llys sy'n cynnwys o bosibl barnwyr Llys Cyfiawnder Ewrop a barnwyr o'r DU, a fyddai'n gyfystyr â llys masnach. Does dim dianc rhag hynny. Os ydych am gael cytundeb masnach rydd, mae'n rhaid ichi dderbyn y bydd gan bobl eraill hefyd farn am sut y mae'r cytundeb masnach rydd hwnnw'n gweithredu mewn gwirionedd. Nid wyf yn gwybod beth yw safbwynt y DU erbyn hyn, a dweud y gwir. Ni fu dim ymgysylltu â'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig. Rydym yn gwybod na all fod yr un fath ag yr oedd cyn yr etholiad. Rydym yn gwybod mai safbwynt y DU oedd ei bod yn dymuno i fater y DU yn gadael yr UE, a pherthynas y DU â'r UE yn y dyfodol, i gael eu trin yn gyfochrog. Safbwynt yr UE oedd y dylai fod yn ddilyniannol. Rydym yn clywed nawr mai safbwynt yr UE sydd wedi ennill y dydd - bydd y trafod yn ddilyniannol. Felly, mae'r tir hwnnw eisoes wedi'i ildio. Yr hyn a oedd yn ôl pob tebyg yn mynd i arwain at ffrae fwyaf yr haf, i ddyfynnu David Davis, nid yw hynny'n mynd i ddigwydd. Rwy'n croesawu'r hyn a ddywedodd am y Cydbwyllgor Gweinidogion, a'r ffaith nad yw bellach yn addas at ei ddiben. Ond mae mater sylfaenol arall yma yr wyf yn credu y bydd y Bil diddymu mawr yn ceisio ymdrin ag ef, ac mewn ffordd sy'n negyddol. Sef, os bydd pwerau mewn meysydd datganoledig yn dychwelyd o Frwsel, ni fyddant byth yn cyrraedd Whitehall, byddant yn dod yn syth yma. Roedd y Bil diddymu mawr, rydym yn credu - wel, yn sicr, cyn yr etholiad - yn mynd i geisio newid y setliad datganoli, heb gyfeirio at bobl Cymru, i atal hynny rhag digwydd. Mae honno'n egwyddor gyfansoddiadol sylfaenol. Ac ni allem dderbyn unrhyw sefyllfa a fyddai'n diystyru'r farn a fynegwyd yn glir gan bobl Cymru yn 2011. Byddai'n llawer mwy synhwyrol pe baem yn dweud yn syml, 'Iawn, mae'r pwerau hynny'n mynd i'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig, ond dewch inni gytuno i beidio â gwneud dim byd â nhw, hyd nes y gallwn roi fframwaith cyffredin ar waith.' Y dewis arall yw sefydlu'r fframwaith cyffredin hwnnw, ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth na allem gytuno ag ef, oherwydd byddai hynny'n gwrthdroi rhan o'r setliad datganoli sy'n gwbl hanfodol. Rydym yn aros i weld beth fydd y Bil diddymu mawr yn ei ddweud mewn gwirionedd, ond yn amlwg mae yma broblem i Gymru. Y mater arall, wrth gwrs, y soniais amdano yn y datganiad yw, er ei fod yn hanfodol inni, os ydym yn edrych ar fasnach, nid yw masnach wedi'i ddatganoli. Does dim dadl am hynny. Ond, er enghraifft, pe bai'r DU yn arwyddo cytundeb masnach rydd gyda Seland Newydd, mae gan Gymru fudd enfawr yn hynny, oherwydd y byddai llawer mwy o gig oen o Seland Newydd yn cyrraedd y farchnad yn y DU. Yn amlwg, mae gennym farn gref am hynny - nid yw'n rhywbeth y byddem yn ei groesawu. Felly, mae'n rhaid cael mecanwaith hefyd i sicrhau bod safbwyntiau'r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig o leiaf yn cael eu hystyried pan fydd y DU yn ceisio cyd-drafod cytundebau masnach rydd, lle byddai cytundeb o'r fath yn cynrychioli anfantais negyddol i wledydd fel Cymru. Bydd yna enghreifftiau eraill sy'n effeithio ar wahanol rannau o wahanol wledydd yn y DU mewn gwahanol ffyrdd, ond mae'r rhain yn gwestiynau sylfaenol y mae angen eu hateb. Rydym wedi ceisio cael yr atebion hynny, a byddwn yn ei wahodd i fynegi barn ar y materion hynny yr wyf wedi'u hamlinellu eisoes, er mwyn inni ddeall yn llawnach beth yw ei feddyliau ers canlyniad y refferendwm y llynedd.