English: I'd like to thank the Minister for his statement today. I welcome the fact that you've written to David Lidington to try to secure a statutory role for the devolved Governments in the future negotiations, but I do find it remarkable that confirmation of this only comes now, four days after we were meant to leave the EU. The Government should have issued this as a demand during negotiations around the inter-governmental agreement, rather than as a request after giving our leverage away, because experience tells us that the British state will only give concessions if the other side has something it wants. Appeals to fairness always fall on deaf ears. We are now just 10 days away from the next designated day for leaving the EU. The final deadline in terms of making a decision is fast approaching and if we're to find a workable solution that avoids the catastrophe of a 'no deal', Labour is going to have to get its house in order. There is no point expecting the Conservative Party to support any reasonable proposals in Westminster because they've long since left the real world and are at war with themselves in a fantasy land of their own making. The MP for Grantham and Stamford, Nick Boles, came to the same conclusion yesterday and resigned the Tory party whip as a result. In terms of the proposals put forward last night, Plaid Cymru MPs, in the spirit of constructive compromise, voted for three options that are acceptable to us as a way forward. We didn't support the Clarke amendment, which simply calls for membership of the customs union, because it doesn't offer the guarantees that we require in terms of the economy, workers' rights and environmental protection. Our MPs voted for the common market 2.0 proposal and a confirmatory vote, and we believe these two options should be combined so that a referendum could be held between a single-market-based workable Brexit plan and remaining in the EU. Of course, both these options would have passed last night had all Labour MPs supported them. Labour has got a lot to answer for in this regard, and I find it particularly astonishing that the deputy leader of Welsh Labour, Carolyn Harris, was one of the MPs to abstain on a referendum, and even more astounding that Ms Harris and the other Labour MPs who defied the whip have not subsequently lost the whip. The other option discussed last night was Joanna Cherry's proposal, the Brexit insurance policy - a safety net designed to make the revocation of article 50 the default option instead of 'no deal' if neither 'no deal' nor an extension has been agreed by 10 April, with a full public inquiry to follow to see whether a further referendum should be held on a Brexit deal that could be both workable and garner public support. The Minister in his answer to me last week suggested that I had misrepresented the situation in this regard, since he believed revoking article 50 with a possible further referendum to follow this was impossible. I wonder whether he would be willing to make a clarification about this, since his colleague Keir Starmer said very clearly yesterday that he did not reject the principle behind Joanna Cherry's revocation proposal, or, to put it another way: does the Minister agree with Mr Starmer or himself on this point? It is a simple point of logic that the right to revoke cannot be both unilateral and conditional, and EU law experts have said that there would be no legal avenue to challenge revocation in the European courts, since the only conditions it needs to satisfy are in relation to the revoking member state's constitutional requirements. Mr Starmer said that Labour's reason for not backing the proposal last night was because the time to confront the issue had not yet arrived. I welcome the First Minister saying this afternoon that the Welsh Government would prefer revocation to no deal, but I would suggest strongly that the time to confront the issue has indeed arrived and that it is now time to act. I'd like to close by asking the Minister to state for the record Welsh Government's top preference in terms of the options now on the table and also whether the Minister agrees with Plaid Cymru that, if a Brexit option does end up securing a majority, this should be put to a confirmatory referendum with an option to remain.
Welsh: Hoffwn ddiolch i'r Gweinidog am ei ddatganiad heddiw. Rwy'n croesawu'r ffaith eich bod wedi ysgrifennu at David Lidington i geisio sicrhau swyddogaeth statudol ar gyfer y Llywodraethau datganoledig yn negodiadau'r dyfodol, ond rwyf yn ei chael hi'n syfrdanol mai dim ond nawr y ceir y cadarnhad hwn, bedwar diwrnod ar ôl yr oeddem ni i fod i adael yr UE. Dylai'r Llywodraeth fod wedi cyhoeddi hyn yn amod yn ystod y trafodaethau ynghylch y cytundeb rhynglywodraethol, yn hytrach nag fel cais ar ôl ildio faint bynnag o rym a oedd gennym ni, oherwydd mae profiad yn dweud wrthym ni na fydd y wladwriaeth Brydeinig ond yn cyfaddawdu os oes gan yr ochr arall rywbeth y mae arni ei eisiau. Ni waeth heb ag apelio am degwch. Rydym ni bellach dim ond 10 diwrnod o'r diwrnod dynodedig nesaf ar gyfer gadael yr UE. Mae'r dyddiad cau terfynol o ran gwneud penderfyniad yn prysur agosáu ac os ydym ni i ddod o hyd i ateb ymarferol sy'n osgoi trychineb ymadael heb gytundeb, mae Llafur yn mynd i orfod cael trefn arni hi ei hun. Ofer yw disgwyl i'r Blaid Geidwadol gefnogi unrhyw gynigion rhesymol yn San Steffan oherwydd maen nhw wedi gadael y byd go iawn ers amser maith ac yng ngyddfau ei gilydd mewn byd breuddwyd o'u gwneuthuriad eu hunain. Daeth AS Grantham a Stamford, Nick Boles, i'r un casgliad ddoe ac ymddiswyddodd chwip y blaid Dorïaidd o ganlyniad. O ran y cynigion a gyflwynwyd neithiwr, pleidleisiodd Aelodau Seneddol Plaid Cymru, yn yr ysbryd o gyfaddawd adeiladol, o blaid tri dewis sy'n dderbyniol i ni fel ffordd ymlaen. Wnaethom ni ddim cefnogi gwelliant Clarke, sy'n galw yn syml am aelodaeth o'r undeb tollau, oherwydd nad yw'n cynnig y gwarantau sydd eu hangen arnom ni o ran yr economi, hawliau gweithwyr a diogelu'r amgylchedd. Pleidleisiodd ein Haelodau Seneddol am y cynnig farchnad gyffredin 2.0 a phleidlais gadarnhau, a chredwn y dylid cyfuno'r ddau ddewis yma fel y gellid cynnal refferendwm rhwng cynllun Brexit ymarferol sy'n seiliedig ar y farchnad sengl ac aros yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Wrth gwrs, byddai'r ddau ddewis hyn wedi cario'r dydd neithiwr pe bai'r holl Aelodau Seneddol Llafur yn eu cefnogi. Mae gan Llafur lawer i ateb drosto yn hyn o beth, ac rwy'n rhyfeddu'n arbennig bod dirprwy arweinydd Llafur Cymru, Carolyn Harris, yn un o'r Aelodau Seneddol i ymatal ar refferendwm, a hyd yn oed yn fwy syfrdanol nad yw Ms Harris ac Aelodau Seneddol Llafur eraill a aeth yn groes i'r chwip wedi colli'r chwip wedyn o ganlyniad. Y dewis arall a drafodwyd neithiwr oedd cynnig Joanna Cherry, y polisi yswiriant Brexit - rhwyd ddiogelwch wedi'i chynllunio i wneud dirymu erthygl 50 y dewis diofyn yn hytrach nag ymadael heb gytundeb os na chytunwyd i ymadael heb gytundeb neu i ofyn am estyniad erbyn 10 Ebrill, gydag ymchwiliad cyhoeddus llawn i ddilyn i weld a ddylid cynnal refferendwm pellach ar gytundeb Brexit a allai fod yn ymarferol ac ennyn cefnogaeth y cyhoedd. Awgrymodd y Gweinidog yn ei ateb i mi yr wythnos diwethaf fy mod i wedi rhoi camargraff o'r sefyllfa yn hyn o beth, gan ei fod yn credu fod dirymu erthygl 50 gyda refferendwm pellach posib i ddilyn hyn yn amhosib. Tybed a fyddai'n barod i roi eglurhad ynghylch hyn, oherwydd dywedodd ei gydweithiwr Keir Starmer yn glir iawn ddoe nad oedd yn gwrthod yr egwyddor y tu ôl i gynnig dirymu Joanna Cherry, neu i'w roi mewn ffordd arall: a yw'r Gweinidog yn cytuno gyda Mr Starmer neu ef ei hun yn hyn o beth? Mae'n bwynt syml o resymeg na all yr hawl i ddirymu fod yn unochrog ac yn amodol ar yr un pryd, ac mae arbenigwyr ar gyfraith yr Undeb Ewropeaidd wedi dweud na fyddai unrhyw dir cyfreithiol i herio dirymu yn y llysoedd Ewropeaidd, gan mai'r unig amodau sydd angen eu bodloni yw'r rheini mewn cysylltiad â dirymu gofynion cyfansoddiadol aelod wladwriaethau. Dywedodd Mr Starmer mai rheswm y Blaid Lafur dros beidio â chefnogi'r cynnig neithiwr oedd oherwydd nad oedd hi'n bryd mynd i'r afael â'r mater eto. Rwy'n croesawu'r ffaith bod Prif Weinidog Cymru wedi dweud y prynhawn yma y byddai'n well gan y Llywodraeth ddirymu dros beidio â chael cytundeb, ond rwy'n awgrymu'n gryf ei bod hi'n hen bryd bellach mynd i'r afael â'r mater a'i bod hi bellach yn bryd gweithredu. Hoffwn gloi drwy ofyn i'r Gweinidog ddweud ar goedd beth yw dewis cyntaf Llywodraeth Cymru o ran y dewisiadau sydd bellach ar gael a hefyd a yw'r Gweinidog yn cytuno â Phlaid Cymru, sef, os yw dewis dros Brexit yn y pen draw yn sicrhau mwyafrif, y dylai hyn fod yn destun refferendwm cadarnhau gyda dewis i aros.