 Cyngorol a gweld o'u wneud o'r diwrnod o ran astiwn iawn a'r bai'r ddîm o'n wneud o'r stwyaf pan hynny, o wnaethau o'r dysgu ffwrdd gwneud o'r cyflecidau o'r ddiwylliant.封in ni'n eu cael eu cael ei ddweud, a hynny yma i nes y dyfodol i'r dangos llwyddiol. Andrew wedi'u ddifieniau arni wrth unig e Chyf ecadu du Aunt Benderfyn i'n ddalod, yna bod nesaf sylfyniadau i'r ddefnyddio. Rwy'n cael eu bod ni'n meddwl am eich tyfu. Yr hyn yw'n mynd i ddim yn ddechrau i dynnu'r ddechrau ac ythydig ymwneud yn gwybod i'r ddweud y rhaglen nowe? Ma wedyn bod, rydw i gydag i bobl eich gwirionedd wedi rhoi girteithiaol i ddweud o'r ymerdd ymlaen wedi eisiau chi yn cael ei wneud o gwirionedd yn gyfroddu i ethno. Dyna yma i bobl eich bleicurwyr. Cwrwmau'r digid o bobl eich Lywodraeth yn cael eu rydw i'r ddechydd a cyfwylio'r parodi yn cael ei wneud yousfyrdd, a mae'n cael ei cerddo i'r rhaeg a'r effeith iawn. Mae'n cerddo iddyn nhw fyddo'n parodi, a wneud eu bod yn cael eu siwr o bwysigead. I would hate that we would go back to the old and it would just slow to be a work of the old and the old. Interestingly, what we have come to call is that there is a lack of requests to many countries because they have some kind of a non-descriptive... That's right. Although we in the UK have introduced a proportionality test, so we were receiving an extraordinary number of requests from Poland, but I mean some of them were in relation... Stealing a chicken, I think. I think somebody who ordered a hoover didn't pay for it or something. But there is now a proportionality test and the figures are heading in the right direction in relation to Poland. Therefore, I'm just wondering in the context of the European Court, to a lot of extent is potentially an issue that even if there is political agreement on the way forward, I'm mindful that the first duration of the European Economic Area Agreement fell following the European Court back in 1992 when it had to be in both years. It was concerns about the status of European law. Now, what you are allowing in relation to all the way a nice man, it seems to me that fundamentally within that framework is an understanding that they, if you like case law, the European Court of Justice is going to be respected. We couldn't say that in the context of a much bigger population in relation to the UK, 65 million, compared to a much smaller, about 8 million or so. And also obviously a much sort of potential for divergence right in the context of a country that's in terms of your skeptic as against the remainder itself. I mean, to a lot of extent, even if it's a political agreement, it could potentially fall forward with the Court itself. Even the, I'm not sure where it stands at the moment, but the joint European Convention on Human Rights has been problematic in terms of the European Court instead of saying that it's essential integrity and independence could be threatened by another legal institution. Yes, I mean, I say so, I think you've put your finger on a very good point. It's very complex, isn't it? Assuming that there was the political will to have some sort of arrangement whereby due regard or respect for the two different bodies and systems of case law with the objective of ensuring as much consistency as possible, assuming that all that was politically acceptable and given what's at stake as we were discussing earlier, one hopes it would become politically acceptable. What you could never predict is what the future decisions of the Court of Justice may be, which might throw all that into died. And of course with extradition in particular, you are a definition always dealing with two ends, one within and one without the European Union. And so inconsistency is instantly problematic. Having said all of that, although it may change, I think a number of cases are growing in frequency that actually arrive before the European Court in relation to the European arrest warrant. One is in danger possibly when focusing on that of overstating how frequent an occurrence that is, but that doesn't grapple with how the law may change. I think the whole other aspect of this, which is, you know, the precedent value of what you decided on in this area, because I think there are going to be a lot of other areas where there's going to be, you know, possibly these new constitutional mechanisms needed, and I mean both sides are going to be very good of them to see any problem in relation to this particular issue, much so they're going to resolve it because the possible precedent value on the other hand may to me it seems that the terrorism question is not to be incentive that both sides have to try to find some way out of this, but I'm sorry to say Andrew, I think we have solution right next to that in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on this issue. Yes, well, you know, just viewing it, just viewing it as a lawyer, if someone came to give us some advice as to the way to proceed, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to come to that conclusion, would it? But we are mere lawyers, you know. I agree.