Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, a diolch i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am gloi’r drafodaeth mewn ffordd gymodlon, a byddaf i’n dychwelyd at rai o’i sylwadau ef yn y man. Ond, pwrpas y ddadl gan Blaid Cymru heddiw oedd sicrhau ein bod ni’n cadw ffocws yma yng Nghymru ar beth sydd yn hollbwysig i Gymru, i economi Cymru ac i’n cymunedau ni. Rydym ni’n gwneud hynny heb unrhyw ymddiheuro bod yna ddadl ar Brexit eto. Mae yna wyth Bil yn ymwneud â Brexit yn Araith y Frenhines, so gallaf i ddweud wrthych chi os ydych chi wedi danto ar Brexit erbyn hyn, mae yna fwy o lawer i ddod yn ystod y ddwy flynedd nesaf o Senedd San Steffan.

Ond rydym ni’n cynnig y ddadl yma gan ein bod ni’n meddwl bod y sefyllfa wleidyddol wedi newid gan fod Llywodraeth San Steffan, a’r Blaid Geidwadol yn benodol, wedi mynd at y wlad ond deufis yn ôl, cofiwch chi—ond deufis yn ôl—gan chwilio am fandad am y fath o Brexit yr oedden nhw’n ei ddymuno. A beth oedd y fath o Brexit? Roedd e’n cael ei alw’n Brexit caled, ond roedd e wedi cael ei osod allan yn glir iawn yn araith Lancaster House. Brexit a oedd yn gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, ie, ond hefyd yn gadael y farchnad sengl a gadael yr undeb dollau. Mae Plaid Cymru o’r farn ein bod ni am aros yn y ddau sefydliad yna, a dyna beth sydd wedi ei gytuno rhyngom ni a’r Blaid Lafur yn y Papur Gwyn.

Ond yn fwy pwysig byth, fe ddywedodd pobl—nid pobl Cymru’n unig, ond dywedodd pobl dros Brydain i gyd—eu bod nhw yn erbyn y Brexit roedd Theresa May yn ei ddymuno. Mae’n wir nad oedd modd canfod yn union pa fath o Brexit roedd pobl yn dymuno ei weld drwy ethol Senedd grog, ond nid y fath o Brexit a fyddai’n dinistrio economi Cymru a swyddi Cymru. Erbyn hyn, wrth gwrs, rydym ni wedi gweld y tro byd sy’n digwydd, gyda’r Canghellor bellach yn sôn am gadw swyddi, y Canghellor bellach yn sôn am gadw rhyw fath o gyfundrefn dollau, y Canghellor bellach yn sôn am gyfnod trosiannol—rhywbeth nad oedd ar agenda’r Blaid Geidwadol cyn yr etholiad diwethaf a rhywbeth sydd wedi newid yn llwyr, felly. Dyna pam roedd Plaid Cymru’n meddwl ei bod hi’n bwysig bod y Cynulliad yn ailddatgan, os nad mewn mwyafrif llwyr, drwy fwyafrif o’r pleidiau yma, mai dyma’r egwyddorion y dylem ni sefydlu’r trafodaethau Brexit arnynt.

Rydym ni’n gryf iawn o’r farn y dylai’r holl bwerau ac adnoddau a arferir ar hyn o bryd ar lefel yr Undeb Ewropeaidd o fewn y cyfrifoldebau datganoledig gael eu harfer gan Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru wedi i Gymru adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Roeddwn i’n eithaf hoff o beth ddywedodd Eluned Morgan, fod y pwerau yma wedi eu benthyg i’r Undeb Ewropeaidd a’u bod nhw’n dychwelyd yn y modd yna. Efallai nad yw hynny’n gyfreithiol gywir, ond rydw i’n meddwl ein bod ni’n deall y cysyniad yn hynny o beth. Dyna pam nad yw’r addewid yng ngwelliant 1 gan y Ceidwadwyr ac yn Araith y Frenhines—sef rhywbeth yr ydym ni wedi ei glywed o’r blaen, a dweud y gwir—na fydd pwerau yn cael eu symud oddi wrth y Cynulliad yn hen ddigon o lawer i ni. Ni ddylai fod yn ddigon i unrhyw blaid sydd wedi ei hethol i Senedd genedlaethol Cymru, achos nid yw’r addewid yna i beidio â thynnu grymoedd oddi arnom ni yn ateb i’r cwestiwn o beth ddaw o’r grymoedd hynny sy’n cael eu rhyddhau ar lefel yr Undeb Ewropeaidd ac wedyn yn cael eu dychwelyd i Gymru yn uniongyrchol, yn ein barn ni.

I’d like to turn to some of the individual contributions to the debate now, and say that, first of all, I think the Cabinet Secretary adequately—more than adequately—dealt with the point around the customs union and the concerns that Eluned Morgan had. I’d just put on record that Plaid Cymru’s position is exactly that set out by the Cabinet Secretary, and we believe we should remain in the customs union, at least for the time being. But if there were to be negotiations—this is an important point: we don’t have a choice about this; it is the Westminster Government that will decide this—if there were to be those negotiations, then surely we should be part of them and have an equal say to the other nations of the United Kingdom in those negotiations on trade deals.

It was raised by Neil Hamilton that this was unrealistic, because the examples given by Adam Price, whether they be Australia or Canada, were different sorts of nations that had different spatial states with different populations. Well, there are 13.6 million people in Ontario and 146,000 people in Prince Edward Island—I didn’t know Prince Edward had got a job as an island, but there we are. This is the real difference, I think: in Canada, both of them are provinces; both of them had an equal say in the trade deal that Canada set as its trade deal. So, I don’t think that his argument is legitimate. And I think Neil Hamilton’s argument and Mark Isherwood’s argument share a common fount, I have to say. The foundation of the argument is the same. The foundation is that we’re a marvellous country, the UK, it’s beyond belief how wonderful we are, and therefore these Europeans will have to do deals with us. Well, trade doesn’t work like that. Adam Price mentioned that we might have to go back to the eighteenth century. Well, just go back to the nineteenth century; go back to Disraeli. What does Disraeli say about trade?

‘Free trade is not a principle. It is an expedient.’

And when we come to negotiate our relationship with the other remaining 27 European nations, they will all have expediencies that they will all need to exercise, and the principle of free trade, which isn’t that principled anyway, will get sacrificed from time to time on the altar of political reality. That is why it’s important that the voice of Wales is heard in these discussions, and is not diluted in any way, shape or form.

Eluned Morgan said that she was concerned that we’ll still have severe economic effects from the decision to leave the European Union. She’s not the only one. Mark Carney thinks we’ll have severe economic effects. He warned in the Mansion House speech only two days ago that we’ll have a wage squeeze coming in as a direct result of that.

And it is important. As the seals bark from Rhossili, it is important, as well, that we protect not only the economy, but the standards and the protections and workers’ rights that we have currently as members of the European Union. Not because we want to do so simply because they’re in existence, but because we do think that a Conservative Government propped up by the DUP would see these as ripe to be taken away from us. And a repeal Bill, which will only temporarily, perhaps, preserve them, while the Conservatives and the DUP get to work on the detail of what they’d like to deprive us of in terms of our rights, has to be protected in the Welsh context. And that’s why the seals of Rhossili—and the seals of Pembrokeshire as well, if I may say so, which I’m sure are equally protected by Dai Lloyd—are right to demand a continuity Bill, I think, now: that we state what we seek to preserve here within our own Assembly.

The Cabinet Secretary was very emollient and quite generous, I think, in his approach to how we’ve set out this debate—not only the motion in itself, but the context of the motion. But I have to say this, going back to the opening and the very precise and very well-argued remarks of Steffan Lewis, we have not heard a clear elucidation, really, of the Welsh Government’s position now. We know what it was in the White Paper, and we accept that, but politics do change—I accept that—and let’s be honest, the general election didn’t just change the Conservatives, it changed the Labour Party as well. There’s a different kind of Labour Party that we’re facing now.

So, where, now, do we lie? And I don’t think debate is the right place to iron out these kinds of finesses. It is a theological question to a certain extent. But we want to have this discussion because we want to understand where, now, when you’ve got over 50 Labour MPs and politicians of great note, and lords, who say, ‘It’s membership of the single market’ when they are writing, together with other Conservatives, ‘We want to preserve membership of the single market’—something that Plaid Cymru can subscribe to—and yet we can’t have the First Minister reply to Leanne Wood and say, ‘Yes, membership of the single market.’ We couldn’t even have him say ‘participation’ in quite the way that it says in the White Paper.

I think that’s something that needs to be resolved, because I also think there’s a job of work to be done on behalf of the people of Wales here, and I think there’s certainly more than one party in the Assembly that can do this, and there are individuals from more than two parties. I think there are individuals elsewhere that might be interested in taking this forward as well. And I would like to see us work as much as possible in concert on these issues, but in order to do so, the First Minister himself must give a very clear undertaking on what he’s seeking to achieve on behalf of Wales.