English: We have, from time to time, discussed international issues. I know that, in the past, we've looked at the issue of apartheid in South Africa and Nelson Mandela. We discussed Catalonia not so long ago and I've certainly raised issues with regard to Ukraine, and in the last session, we did have discussions on issues of nuclear weapons. I do agree, though, that we have to be cautious about raising international issues here. We don't have direct decision-making powers or devolved responsibilities in some areas, but I do think, as a Parliament, we cannot ignore the impact that certain international events have and the impact on our constituents, particularly in the areas where people actually do want a view from us, particularly where there are very important moral and political questions that are involved. I think this is actually one of those. Can I say, I don't raise any criticism of the First Minister on this? He's expressed a view that is one that is held by many people. It's not a view or an approach that I agree with, but I think this is an area where we do have to actually have respect for different views and opinions. The issue for me - the fundamental issue for me is this: the failure to engage with Parliament and to get an endorsement. And it is a trend - it's an unfortunate trend that's been taking place in Westminster of moves to bypass Parliament. The whole article 50 case was about bypassing Parliament. Issues around the withdrawal Bill are about bypassing Parliament. It is really with great sadness that this issue, when it arose, was again about bypassing and not trusting Parliament; not trusting the people who have been elected by the people of the UK to actually take these decisions. I can say that what I know about the missile strikes that took place, the targeting of specific chemical dumps and chemical capacity, had I been an MP in Westminster and had I been presented with the detail of a strike that was specifically focused on the destruction of those, I would have actually endorsed that. But, the fundamental point is that Parliament was bypassed and was not involved. It is such a dangerous political precedent, a dangerous road for us to go down, particularly in the current international climate we're in. I went back and had a look at the actual statement that was made by Robin Cook, which established the convention that Parliament should be asked to endorse action, and I think it's worth reflecting on that. This is what he said: 'From the start of the present crisis - ' this is 2003, ' - I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.' The point there was a fundamental point of principle that Robin Cook established and that is that ultimately in this modern world, this dangerous world we live in, democratic institutions have got to be the bodies that endorse going to war, that endorse military action. If we move away from that, we go down a very, very dangerous road. What does it say about democracy if the actions of a Prime Minister are based on, 'I cannot trust the people who are elected to take these decisions by the people of the United Kingdom, therefore, I will use an outdated prerogative in order to take action.' It undermines and pours contempt on our democratic institutions. It was an act of cowardice by the Prime Minister and that is why she was fundamentally wrong and why there is so much anger about, not the decision - not what has actually happened - but the decision and the way it was taken and the fact that the voice of the people of this country was bypassed.
Welsh: O bryd i'w gilydd, rydym wedi trafod materion rhyngwladol. Yn y gorffennol, gwn ein bod wedi edrych ar fater apartheid yn Ne Affrica a Nelson Mandela. Trafodasom Gatalonia yn ddiweddar ac yn sicr, rwyf wedi crybwyll materion yn ymwneud â'r Ukrain, ac yn ystod y sesiwn ddiwethaf, cawsom drafodaethau ar faterion yn ymwneud ag arfau niwclear. Rwy'n cytuno, er hynny, fod yn rhaid inni fod yn ofalus ynglŷn â thrafod materion rhyngwladol yma. Nid oes gennym bwerau i wneud penderfyniadau uniongyrchol na chyfrifoldebau datganoledig mewn rhai meysydd, ond rwy'n credu, fel Senedd, na allwn anwybyddu'r effaith a gaiff rhai digwyddiadau rhyngwladol a'r effaith ar ein hetholwyr, yn enwedig yn y meysydd lle mae pobl eisiau gwybod beth yw ein barn, yn enwedig lle y ceir cwestiynau moesol a gwleidyddol pwysig iawn. Credaf fod hyn yn un o'r rheini. A gaf fi ddweud nad wyf yn beirniadu Prif Weinidog Cymru ynglŷn â hyn? Mae wedi mynegi barn sy'n un a goleddir gan lawer o bobl. Nid yw'n farn neu'n ymagwedd y cytunaf â hi, ond credaf fod hwn yn faes lle mae'n rhaid i ni barchu safbwyntiau a barn wahanol. Y cwestiwn i mi - y cwestiwn sylfaenol i mi yw hyn: y methiant i ymgysylltu â'r Senedd a sicrhau cefnogaeth. Ac mae'n duedd - mae'n duedd anffodus sydd wedi bod yn digwydd yn San Steffan o symudiadau i fynd heibio i'r Senedd. Roedd holl fater erthygl 50 yn ymwneud â mynd heibio i'r Senedd. Mae materion ynghylch y Bil ymadael yn ymwneud â mynd heibio i'r Senedd. Mater o dristwch mawr oedd bpd y mater hwn, pan gododd, unwaith eto yn ymwneud ag osgoi a pheidio ag ymddiried yn y Senedd; peidio ag ymddiried yn y bobl a etholwyd gan bobl y DU i wneud y penderfyniadau hyn mewn gwirionedd. Gallaf ddweud o ran yr hyn rwy'n ei wybod am y cyrchoedd taflegrau a ddigwyddodd, targedu tomenni cemegol penodol a gallu cemegol, pe bawn i'n AS yn San Steffan ac wedi cael manylion ymosodiad a ganolbwyntiai'n benodol ar ddinistrio'r rheini, buaswn wedi cymeradwyo hynny mewn gwirionedd. Ond y pwynt sylfaenol yw eu bod wedi mynd heibio i'r Senedd ac ni chafodd ran yn hyn. Mae'n gynsail gwleidyddol mor beryglus, yn ffordd beryglus i ni fynd ar hyd-ddi, yn enwedig yn yr hinsawdd ryngwladol bresennol. Euthum yn ôl i edrych ar y datganiad a wnaeth Robin Cook, a sefydlodd y confensiwn y dylid gofyn i'r Senedd gymeradwyo ymosodiad, ac rwy'n credu ei bod hi'n werth myfyrio ar hynny. Dyma'r hyn a ddywedodd: ' O ddechrau'r argyfwng presennol - mae hyn yn 2003, - fel arweinydd y tŷ, rwyf wedi pwysleisio hawl y lle hwn i bleidleisio ar ba un a ddylai Prydain fynd i ryfel. Bu'n hoff thema sylwebwyr nad oes gan y Tŷ hwn rôl ganolog mwyach yng ngwleidyddiaeth Prydain. Ni allai dim ddangos yn well eu bod yn anghywir nag i'r Tŷ hwn ymatal rhag anfon milwyr i ryfel nad oes cytundeb rhyngwladol iddo na chefnogaeth yn y wlad hon. Rwy'n bwriadu ymuno â'r rheini nos yfory a fydd yn pleidleisio yn erbyn ymosodiadau milwrol yn awr. Am y rheswm hwnnw, ac am y rheswm hwnnw'n unig, a chyda chalon drom, rwy'n ymddiswyddo o'r Llywodraeth. Roedd y pwynt a sefydlodd Robin Cook yn un o egwyddor sylfaenol, sef mai sefydliadau democrataidd yn y pen draw, yn y byd modern hwn, y byd peryglus hwn rydym yn byw ynddo, ddylai fod y cyrff sy'n cymeradwyo mynd i ryfel, sy'n cymeradwyo ymosodiadau milwrol. Os trown ein cefnau ar hynny, rydym yn dilyn llwybr peryglus iawn. Beth y mae'n ei ddweud am ddemocratiaeth os yw gweithredoedd Prif Weinidog yn seiliedig ar, 'Ni allaf ymddiried yn y bobl a etholwyd i wneud y penderfyniadau hyn gan bobl y Deyrnas Unedig, felly, fe ddefnyddiaf fraint hen ffasiwn er mwyn gweithredu.' Mae'n tanseilio ac yn difrïo ein sefydliadau democrataidd. Gweithred o lwfrdra ar ran y Prif Weinidog ydoedd a dyna pam yr oedd hi'n sylfaenol anghywir a dyna pam y mae cymaint o ddicter, nid ynglŷn â'r penderfyniad - nid ynglŷn â'r hyn sydd wedi digwydd mewn gwirionedd - ond y penderfyniad a'r ffordd y cafodd ei wneud a'r ffaith ei bod wedi osgoi gwrando ar lais pobl y wlad hon.