Tales from the Senedd with Neil Hamilton. Plenary session 5.9.2019 / Debate: Brexit and Prorogation of the UK Parliament.
Well, blessed are those who expect nothing for they shall not be disappointed, and I didn’t expect to hear any new arguments today from the ‘remain’ fanatics who have given rise to the debate. We had an eloquent threnody from David Melding, which I found very effecting and an interesting constitutional disquisition from Hefin David. But otherwise, we’ve gone around the same course that we have many, many times before, and so, what this Assembly has been doing today is perhaps what it does best, certainly in relation to Brexit, namely to posture impotently and polish its anti-democratic credentials.
The plain fact of the matter is that 53 per cent of the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union without qualification in 2016, but 100 per cent of Labour Members, Plaid Cymru Members and, of course, the sole Liberal Democract, of course, are remainers. There is a disconnect between the people and this Assembly, as indeed there is at Westminster.
The leader of Plaid Cymru, I thought, undermined his own argument by the ridiculous hyperbole in which he indulged, comparing Boris Johnson to Oswald Mosley, et cetera. He talked about Boris Johnson’s contempt for democracy. I think the greater contempt is the contempt of his party and of the Labour Party for the decision of the British people, which was quite unambiguous, three years ago—or now more than three years ago. It is certainly quixotic to accuse the Prime Minister of being a dictator when he has said that he wants a general election to resolve this impasse. Dictators are not normally found calling for elections that they themselves might well lose.
Now, the period of time that has been argued about today, in which Parliament would be prorogued, it is said, means that we remove an opportunity for scrutiny, but we know that the truth of the matter is that all the scrutiny of all the arguments has been done on both sides many, many times. This is nothing to do with parliamentary scrutiny at all. It is in fact everything to do with the anti-democratic determination at all costs of the remainers to defy the will of the people in the referendum, and the great problem that we now have, the great constitutional problem that we now have, is that we’ve got a ‘remain’ Parliament versus a ‘leave’ people.
This Assembly is even more of a ‘remain’ Parliament against a ‘leave’ people because Wales, just as England, voted by 53 per cent to leave, but in this place, the ‘remain’ majority is even greater than it is at Westminster. So, a general election is long overdue. We need a general election at Westminster to sweep out the sewers of the anti-democratic detritus that blocks the system, because that general election will be about one thing and one thing only, and that is Parliament against the people of this country. I think there are no prizes for guessing what the outcome of that will be.
When MPs voted for article 50 to be triggered, they all knew what they were doing, and that included voting to leave without a deal if no deal could be agreed. Now, I think a deal might have been agreed if we had a Government with a credible negotiating position, but that, at every step of the way, was undermined by the ‘remain’ fanatics who wanted ‘no deal’ to be taken off the table, which included the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the business Secretary and half the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister of that time, Theresa May, who was serially indecisive, not a believer in what she was doing. In those circumstances, no British Government could successfully have concluded a deal that would be acceptable to Brexiteers.
The truth of the matter is that, until Boris Johnson formed a new Government, we had a Government of saboteurs. Philip Hammond and Greg Clark in particular did everything they possibly could to undermine the negotiating process and indeed to block Brexit, which the British people voted for. We had the most hopeless Prime Minister, as I’ve said before, since Lord North. She had a strategy to keep us in the EU in practice, and the atmosphere of crisis that we now have was created by her serial indecision, and we’re now presented with a gun to the head.
I agree with Mark Reckless. We didn’t want to find ourselves in a situation where there is no deal. Of course it’s in everybody’s interest that there should be a deal—a free trade deal. That’s what the two-year period that article 50 provides was meant to achieve. But because of the intransigence of the EU, as Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance Minister, pointed out in great detail in his great book, Adults in the Room, because he’d seen it all from the Greek perspective, the sequencing imposed by the EU was exactly what they did to Greece, a country upon which the EU has imposed unprecedented austerity, in which the GNP of Greece declined by one third. Now, that’s real austerity instead of the false austerity that we often hear about in this Chamber.
The truth of the matter is that the ‘remainiacs’ think that the British people should keep on voting until they give them what they want. This is very traditional in the EU. We’ve had referenda in Denmark, in Holland, in Ireland twice and in France, and in the immortal words of Monsieur Juncker—I will give way if the Llywydd permits—’If it’s a “yes”‘—and this was in relation to the French referendum—’If it’s a “yes”, on we go, and if it’s a “no”, we continue.’
I give way to the former First Minister.
I’m grateful to the Member for giving way. What is the alternative to the backstop? That is the question that I ask. Lots of people have said they don’t want it, but what is his alternative?
In the words of Simon Coveney, and they’re on the screen here,
‘We do recognise the reality that Ireland will have a responsibility to protect its own place in the…single market and that will involve some checks. But I can assure you that we will try to do that in a way that limits the risk, and we will try and do it…away from the border.’
He is the Irish foreign Minister, and that is the answer to the question.
I am shocked, actually, that Plaid Cymru still calls itself a nationalist party, in spite of what Rhun ap Iorwerth has just said. In fact, they are a regionalist surrender party. Their idea of nationalism is to transfer more and more power away not just from Cardiff, but even away from Westminster to Brussels and hand it to a technocratic elite who we can’t even name let alone vote for and vote out if we don’t like what they do. So, they’re the very opposite of a nationalist party, actually. They’re merely regional separatists and an apology for a national party.
And I’m shocked also that the Labour Party—the party that came into existence to protect the interests of working people—should now find itself reduced to the rump that it is, a globalist conspiracy, which we see in the EU, with all the usual suspects, from Mark Carney and the Goldman Sachs elite and all the international lobbyists, the multinational companies lined up to line their own pockets in Brussels by the use of multimillion pound lobbying companies, all combining to introduce protectionism and a raft of regulations designed to frustrate competition and keep out entrepreneurial, new companies.
This is a massive conspiracy against the interests of working people, and now the Labour Party has utterly abandoned any claim to represent ordinary people in this country. A party that supports mass immigration to depress wages and expand its migrant quota base, and a party that ignores the majority to appease politically incorrect minority groups and third sector political propagandist parasites, increases fuel poverty to enrich multimillionaire windfarm developers, and with a Marxist leadership that would reduce this country to the status of Venezuela. That is the vision of the Labour Party for the future. Bring on a general election, I say, so that ‘magic grandpa’ can be exposed to the scrutiny of the British people and we can get the Brexit-supporting Government that the British people voted for in 2016, and that we deliver back once again the real sovereignty of Parliament, which will come by the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster and, indeed, to Cardiff.
Full video can also be seen here. Neil Hamilton’s speech starts at 14:53:56
Fersiwn Gymraeg islaw / Welsh language version below.
___________________________________________
Wel, gwyn fyd y rhai nad ydynt yn disgwyl dim gan na chânt eu siomi, ac nid oeddwn yn disgwyl clywed unrhyw ddadleuon newydd heddiw gan y penboethiaid ‘aros’ sydd wedi cyflwyno’r ddadl. Cawsom alargan huawdl gan David Melding, y teimlwn ei bod yn effeithiol iawn ac ymdriniaeth gyfansoddiadol ddiddorol gan Hefin David. Ond fel arall, rydym wedi mynd o gwmpas yr un cwrs ag y gwnaethom lawer, lawer gwaith o’r blaen, ac felly, efallai mai’r hyn y mae’r Cynulliad hwn wedi bod yn ei wneud heddiw yw’r hyn a wna orau, yn sicr mewn perthynas â Brexit, sef ystumio’n ddibwrpas a rhoi sglein ar ei gredoau gwrth-ddemocrataidd.
Y gwir plaen amdani yw bod 53 y cant o bobl Cymru wedi pleidleisio dros adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn ddiamod yn 2016, ond mae 100 y cant o’r Aelodau Llafur, Aelodau Plaid Cymru a’r unig Ddemocrat Rhyddfrydol, wrth gwrs, yn gefnogwyr ‘aros’. Mae diffyg cysylltiad rhwng y bobl a’r Cynulliad hwn, fel sydd yn San Steffan yn wir. Roeddwn yn meddwl bod arweinydd Plaid Cymru wedi tanseilio ei ddadl ei hun drwy’r ormodiaith hurt a ddefnyddiodd, yn cymharu Boris Johnson ag Oswald Mosley, ac ati. Soniodd am ddirmyg Boris Johnson tuag at ddemocratiaeth. Credaf mai’r dirmyg mwyaf yw dirmyg ei blaid a’r Blaid Lafur tuag at benderfyniad pobl Prydain, a oedd yn eithaf diamwys, dair blynedd yn ôl—neu dros dair blynedd yn ôl bellach. Yn sicr mae’n afrealistig cyhuddo’r Prif Weinidog o fod yn unben ag yntau wedi dweud ei fod am gael etholiad cyffredinol i ddod o hyd i ffordd drwy’r cyfyngder. Nid yw unbeniaid fel arfer yn galw am etholiadau y gallent hwy eu hunain yn hawdd eu colli.
Nawr, mae’r cyfnod o amser y dadleuwyd yn ei gylch heddiw pan fyddai’r Senedd wedi’i haddoedi, yn ôl yr hyn a ddywedir, yn golygu ein bod yn cael gwared ar gyfle i graffu, ond gwyddom mai’r gwir amdani yw bod yr holl graffu ar yr holl ddadleuon wedi’i wneud ar y ddwy ochr lawer, lawer gwaith. Nid oes a wnelo hyn â chraffu seneddol o gwbl. Mae’n ymwneud yn llwyr â phenderfyniad gwrth-ddemocrataidd doed a ddêl y rhai sydd am aros i wrthsefyll ewyllys y bobl yn y refferendwm, a’r broblem fawr sydd gennym yn awr, y broblem gyfansoddiadol fawr sydd gennym yn awr, yw bod gennym Senedd ‘aros’ yn erbyn pobl sydd am ‘adael’.
Mae’r Cynulliad hwn yn fwy fyth o Senedd ‘aros’ yn erbyn pobl sydd am ‘adael’ am fod 53 y cant o bobl Cymru, yn union fel Lloegr, wedi pleidleisio dros adael, ond yn y fan hon, mae’r mwyafrif sydd dros ‘aros’ hyd yn oed yn fwy nag yn San Steffan. Felly, mae’n hen bryd cael etholiad cyffredinol. Mae arnom angen etholiad cyffredinol yn San Steffan i ysgubo carthffosydd y gweddillion gwrth-ddemocrataidd sy’n blocio’r system, oherwydd bydd yr etholiad cyffredinol hwnnw’n ymwneud ag un peth ac un peth yn unig, sef y Senedd yn erbyn pobl y wlad hon. Rwy’n credu nad oes gwobrau am ddyfalu beth fydd canlyniad hynny.
Pan bleidleisiodd ASau o blaid cychwyn erthygl 50, roeddent i gyd yn gwybod beth oeddent yn ei wneud, ac roedd hynny’n cynnwys pleidleisio dros adael heb gytundeb os na ellid cytuno ar gytundeb. Nawr, credaf y gellid bod wedi cytuno ar gytundeb pe bai gennym Lywodraeth â safbwynt negodi credadwy, ond cafodd hwnnw ei danseilio bob cam o’r ffordd gan y penboethiaid ‘aros’ a oedd eisiau i adael heb gytundeb gael ei dynnu oddi ar y bwrdd, yn cynnwys Canghellor y Trysorlys a’r Ysgrifennydd busnes a hanner y Cabinet, a’r Prif Weinidog ar y pryd, Theresa May, a oedd yn gyson amhendant, heb fod yn credu yn yr hyn roedd hi’n ei wneud.
O dan yr amgylchiadau hynny, ni allai’r un Llywodraeth Brydeinig fod wedi llwyddo i gwblhau cytundeb a fyddai’n dderbyniol i’r rhai oedd yn cefnogi Brexit. Hyd nes y ffurfiodd Boris Johnson lywodraeth newydd, y gwir amdani yw bod gennym Lywodraeth o ddifrodwyr. Gwnaeth Philip Hammond a Greg Clark yn arbennig bopeth a allent i danseilio’r broses negodi ac yn wir i rwystro Brexit y pleidleisiodd pobl Prydain drosto. Roedd gennym y Prif Weinidog mwyaf anobeithiol ers yr Arglwydd North, fel y dywedais o’r blaen. I bob pwrpas, roedd ganddi strategaeth i’n cadw yn yr UE, a chrëwyd yr awyrgylch o argyfwng sydd gennym yn awr gan ei diffyg penderfyniad, ac mae gwn wrth ein pennau bellach.
Rwy’n cytuno â Mark Reckless. Nid oeddem am fod mewn sefyllfa lle na cheir cytundeb. Wrth gwrs, mae cael cytundeb o fudd i bawb—cytundeb masnach rydd. Dyna beth oedd y cyfnod o ddwy flynedd y mae erthygl 50 yn ei ddarparu i fod i’w gyflawni. Ond oherwydd anhyblygrwydd yr UE, fel y nododd Yanis Varoufakis, Gweinidog cyllid Gwlad Groeg, yn fanwl iawn yn ei lyfr gwych, Adults in the Room, gan ei fod wedi gweld y cyfan o safbwynt Gwlad Groeg, roedd y drefn a orfodwyd gan yr UE yn union fel y gwnaethant i Wlad Groeg, gwlad y mae’r UE wedi gorfodi llymder digynsail arni, lle gwelwyd dirywiad o draean yng nghynnyrch gwladol gros Gwlad Groeg. Nawr, dyna gyni gwirioneddol yn lle’r cyni ffug y clywn amdano’n aml yn y Siambr hon.
Y gwir amdani yw bod y penboethiaid ‘aros’ yn credu y dylai pobl Prydain ddal i bleidleisio nes iddynt roi’r hyn y maent am ei gael iddynt. Mae hyn yn draddodiadol iawn yn yr UE. Rydym wedi cael refferenda yn Nenmarc, yn yr Iseldiroedd, yn Iwerddon ddwywaith ac yn Ffrainc, ac yng ngeiriau anfarwol Monsieur Juncker—fe ildiaf os yw’r Llywydd yn caniatáu hynny—’os yw’n “ie”‘—ac roedd hyn yn ymwneud â refferendwm Ffrainc—’os yw’n “ie”, ymlaen â ni, ac os yw’n “na”, fe wnawn ni barhau.’
Fe ildiaf i’r cyn-Brif Weinidog.
Rwy’n ddiolchgar i’r Aelod am ildio. Beth yw’r dewis arall yn lle’r ‘backstop’? Dyna’r cwestiwn rwy’n ei ofyn. Mae llawer o bobl wedi dweud nad ydynt ei eisiau, ond beth yw ei ddewis arall ef?
Yng ngeiriau Simon Coveney, ac maent ar y sgrin yma,
Rydym yn cydnabod y realiti y bydd gan Iwerddon gyfrifoldeb i ddiogelu ei lle ei hun yn y… farchnad sengl a bydd hynny’n golygu rhai archwiliadau. Ond gallaf eich sicrhau y byddwn yn ceisio gwneud hynny mewn ffordd sy’n cyfyngu ar y risg, a byddwn yn ceisio gwneud hynny… i ffwrdd oddi wrth y ffin.
Ef yw Gweinidog tramor Iwerddon, a dyna’r ateb i’r cwestiwn.
Rwy’n synnu, mewn gwirionedd, fod Plaid Cymru’n dal i alw ei hun yn blaid genedlaetholgar, er gwaethaf yr hyn y mae Rhun ap Iorwerth newydd ei ddweud. Yn wir, plaid ildiad ranbarthol ydynt. Eu syniad hwy o genedlaetholdeb yw trosglwyddo mwy a mwy o rym i ffwrdd nid yn unig o Gaerdydd, ond i ffwrdd o San Steffan hyd yn oed i Frwsel a’i roi i elît technocrataidd nad ydym yn gallu ei enwi hyd yn oed heb sôn am bleidleisio drostynt a’u pleidleisio allan o’u swyddi os nad ydym yn hoffi’r hyn y maent yn ei wneud. Felly, maent yn gwbl groes i blaid genedlaetholgar mewn gwirionedd. Ymwahanwyr rhanbarthol yn unig ydynt a phlaid genedlaethol dila iawn.
Ac rwy’n synnu hefyd fod y Blaid Lafur—y blaid a ddaeth i fodolaeth i amddiffyn buddiannau’r gweithwyr—bellach wedi crebachu’n weddillion fel y mae, yn gynllwyn globaleiddiol, a welwn yn yr UE, gyda’r hen giwed arferol, o Mark Carney ac elitwyr Goldman Sachs a’r holl lobïwyr rhyngwladol, y cwmnïau amlwladol yn aros eu tro i lenwi eu pocedi eu hunain ym Mrwsel drwy ddefnyddio cwmnïau lobio gwerth miliynau o bunnoedd, oll yn cyfuno i gyflwyno diffyndollaeth a llu o reoliadau a luniwyd i rwystro cystadleuaeth a chadw cwmnïau newydd entrepreneuraidd allan.
Dyma gynllwyn enfawr yn erbyn buddiannau gweithwyr, ac yn awr mae’r Blaid Lafur wedi cefnu’n llwyr ar unrhyw hawl i gynrychioli pobl gyffredin yn y wlad hon. Plaid sy’n cefnogi mewnfudo ar raddfa fawr i ostwng cyflogau ac ehangu ei sylfaen gwota o fewnfudwyr, a phlaid sy’n anwybyddu’r mwyafrif er mwyn tawelu grwpiau lleiafrifol gwleidyddol anghywir a pharasitiaid gwleidyddol trydydd sector sy’n lledaenu propaganda, yn cynyddu tlodi tanwydd i gyfoethogi datblygwyr ffermydd gwynt sy’n lluosfiliwnyddion, a chydag arweinyddiaeth Farcsaidd a fyddai’n crebachu’r wlad hon i statws Feneswela. Dyna yw gweledigaeth y Blaid Lafur ar gyfer y dyfodol. Dewch ag etholiad cyffredinol, rwy’n dweud, er mwyn i ‘magic grandpa’ ddod yn agored i’w graffu gan bobl Prydain a gallwn gael Llywodraeth sy’n cefnogi Brexit fel y pleidleisiodd pobl Prydain drosti yn 2016, ac er mwyn inni adfer sofraniaeth go iawn y Senedd unwaith eto, a ddaw drwy ailwladoli pwerau o Frwsel i San Steffan ac yn wir, i Gaerdydd.
