English: Just on the back of Mick 's question and your response to it, and just to cover this, that's why some of us, of course, voted to have a continuity Bill here, and we needed some sort of legal safeguard for the rights that we have, as you just mentioned. In those areas that are already devolved, we would hope to have some sort of legal assurance that that would be respected by the UK Government. I followed the argument on Sewel, of course, and the decision made that Sewel is there as a political convention but isn't justiciable in a court of law, and I think it should be, along the same kind of lines as you mentioned. Also, there's this business of consent, because, under the Wales Bill, the UK Government assumes that we consent when we do, of course - we would expect that, because that's what we mean by consent, namely that we give our consent in those terms. But they also assume that we consent when we disagree. They also assume that we consent even when we have voted on an LCM to withhold consent, as Scotland have done in the past, as you mentioned. So, there are three forms of consent here, as I see it - some of them unique. I thought that, if you consent, you consent, and that you agree, not that they assume that you give consent when you disagree. And, specifically, when you have expressly voted to disagree, they still take that as consent. We need to tackle that too, legally, because it is important. If people across the world are looking at these proceedings whilst waiting for the rugby, they're thinking, 'Well, where are we going with all of this?' Well, common policy frameworks, for example, currently rely on inter-governmental trust and respect, because they have no statutory basis either, just as Sewel doesn't have a statutory basis. There are examples that you will be more aware of than I am of where there is a lack of respect, where things are agreed where we don't actually agree to them, although, of course, our consent means that we agree even when we don't agree. So, the simple question is: how are we going to get out of this hole, essentially? My party has a solution to this, naturally, because I don't believe we can ever have any sort of respect agenda or equality with the UK Government. But, in the short term, we need some sort of mechanism to get to grips with this issue of consent, because it's fair to say that we consent when we do give our consent, but it isn't fair to do so when we don't give our consent.
Welsh: Jest yn datblygu ac ar gefn y cwestiwn roedd Mick wedi ei ofyn a'ch ateb chithau hefyd, a jest i fynd i mewn i'r syniad yma. Achos, dwi'n credu - . Dyna pam mae rhai ohonom ni wedi pleidleisio, wrth gwrs, i gael Bil parhad yn fan hyn ac eisiau rhyw fath o ddiogelwch cyfreithiol i'r hawliau a ddylai fod gyda gyda ni, fel rydych chi wedi ei grybwyll rŵan. Hynny yw, mewn meysydd sydd eisoes wedi eu datganoli, buaswn i'n gobeithio am ryw fath o hawl cyfreithiol bod hynny'n cael ei barchu gan Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Rwy'n dilyn y ddadl ynglŷn â Sewel, wrth gwrs, a hefyd y penderfyniad sydd wedi'i wneud bod Sewel yna fel confensiwn gwleidyddol, ond dyw e ddim yn gyfreithiol - nid yw'n gallu sefyll i fyny mewn llys barn, felly - ac rwy'n credu y dylai fod, ar yr un math o linellau ag yr oeddech chi'n ei ddweud. Hefyd, y busnes yma o gydsyniad - hynny yw, bod consent, felly - achos o dan Fil Cymru mae Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn ei chymryd hi fel ein bod ni'n cydsynio - yn cytuno - â nhw pan ydym ni yn cytuno â nhw, yn naturiol - buaswn ni'n disgwyl hynny, ontefe, achos dyna beth rydyn ni'n meddwl am consent, sef ein bod ni'n cytuno. Ond, hefyd, maen nhw'n cymryd ein bod ni'n cydsynio pan ydym ni'n anghytuno, a hefyd maen nhw'n cymryd ein bod ni'n cydsynio hyd yn oed pan ydym ni wedi pleidleisio ar LCM i anghytuno, fel y mae'r Alban wedi'i wneud, fel rydych chi wedi ei grybwyll eisoes. Felly, mae yna dair ffurf ar consent fan hyn - rhai unigryw, roeddwn i'n meddwl. Roeddwn i'n meddwl, os oeddech chi'n cydsynio, rydych chi'n 'consent-io' - hynny yw, rydych chi o leiaf yn cytuno - nid eu bod nhw'n cymryd eich bod chi'n cydsynio pan ydych chi'n anghytuno. Ac, yn benodol, pan ydych chi wedi pleidleisio yn chwyrn i anghytuno, maen nhw'n dal i gymryd hynny fel cydsyniad. Mae eisiau mynd i'r afael â hynny, hefyd, yn gyfreithiol, achos mae'n bwysig. Os yw pobl yn fyd eang yn gwrando ar y trafodaethau yma nawr ar eu setiau teledu tra'n aros am y rygbi, wrth gwrs maen nhw'n meddwl i le rydyn ni'n mynd efo hyn. Wel, mae'r fframweithiau polisi cyffredin, er enghraifft - maen nhw'n dibynnu ar hyn o bryd ar barch rhynglywodraethol, achos does dim sail statudol, gyfreithiol i'r rheini chwaith, yn union fel Sewel, felly. Wrth gwrs, mae yna enghreifftiau byddwch chi'n fwy hyddysg ynddyn nhw nag ydw i o'r ffaith bod yna ddiffyg parch - hynny yw, mae pethau'n cael eu cytuno lle dydyn ni ddim yn cytuno, er, wrth gwrs, fel dwi wedi sôn eisoes, mae'n cytundeb ni yn golygu ein bod ni'n cytuno hyd yn oed pan dydyn ni ddim yn cytuno. Felly, y cwestiwn syml ydy: sut ydyn ni'n dod allan o'r twll yma, yn y bôn? Mae gan fy mhlaid i ateb i hyn, wrth gwrs, yn naturiol, achos dwi ddim yn credu gallwn ni fyth cael unrhyw fath o barch a chydraddoldeb â Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Ond, yn y tymor byr, mae eisiau rhyw fath o syniad i fynd i'r afael â'r busnes cydsyniad yma, achos mae'n ddigon teg crybwyll ein bod ni'n cytuno â'r cydsyniad pan ydyn ni yn cytuno, ond nid yw'n deg pan dydyn ni ddim.