 Rwy'n cael ei wneud o'r ffordd o'r Llywodraeth Cymru yn ystod y Llywodraeth 2018, ac mae'n gweithio'r prinsifol o'r Llywodraeth Cynon. Y Llywodraeth Cynon yn y 2018 mae'r gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth. Y Llywodraeth Cynon yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth. Y Llywodraeth Cynon yn y 2020 mae'n gwneud i'ch cyfleoedd y prinsifol o'r Llywodraeth sy'n ddau'r gweithio'r Llywodraeth, yn y EU, yn y 2020, yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth, yn y 30 ddau deisloedau. Yn y gweithio, mae'n ddweud i'ch cyfleoedd yma yn y 2018. Yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth sy'n ddau'r Llywodraeth yn y Llywodraeth, mae'n gwneud i'ch cyfleoedd yma yn y marginol. Ond, fel y gwneud o gwneud, mae Llywodraeth yn y same. Mae'n rhaid i'ch gweithio ddau 31 deisloedau. Mae'r gweithio sy'n ddau, fel Betheryn yn ymgyrch â'n gweithio'r Llywodraeth, ac yn y gweithio'r Llywodraeth, mae'n gweithio'r Llywodraeth sy'n ddau'r Llywodraeth sy'n ddau'r Llywodraeth, is that we will never cancel the US law. All that was a part of the UK law still has the UK law so it's still working and nothing's changed All that happens is that Parliament is free to legislate so we have an example that has been announced this morning where the so-called чемpont tax 5% VAT on sanitary products colours is the minimum threshold under EU VAT legislation. Apparently in the budget next week it's going to be announced that after the 31st of da cemma, that will be reduced to zero, taking use of the freedom of leaving the EU. But the law only changes if parliament says it changes. So absent legislation then it all stays the Mae yng nghychidol o ddod o'r cig cwbod, oherwydd dod o'r llyfr ei cynnwysu'r cyfwyr isol. Llyfrgell, ar ôl i mi ysgrifent, fod yn ymgyrch dechrau, y Llyfrgell yn ymgyrch cwbod maen nhw ond roeddiu o lawion llawn. Llyfrgell yw, mae'n Llaw i Gymru. Oherwydd, Llyfrgell yw Llyfrgell a Llyfrgell yn y Llyfrgell yw Llyfrgell yw Llyfrgell e'r Eulog. Leassell peersbal y Un i Llywodraeth Gyda'r Rule yn ôl, mae'n fudd panaidd y leiddo iawn. Mae'r 31 y Cord災 nesod, mae'n gwneud du lle leiaith financially i wirio, mae seropod na sydd yn bydd fit dwi'n mig 26. Llywer o 20ol 4, yr un Llywodraeth Llywodraeth�baith nw gabynnig. Fyny'ch gael'rucell fellym 2018 fuell uchidnder, The 18 Act said that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom would have the freedom to depart from those presidents on the same basis that it departs from its own presidents. So the practical effect of that is in real terms to bake in all the existing Court of Justice case law. Now that has the merit of certainty, the demerit of making it harder to change decisions that you don't like. So for example, take the Mitsubishi case that Catherine talked about in which the Court of Justice has said that not using a trademark is use of a trademark. Some people say that this is barmy, but presently that authority is binding on all courts in the UK. Under the 2018 arrangement you could go to the Supreme Court to say this is barmy, please change that doctrine. And in principle you could do that. But of course you'd have to have a case, you'd have to take it all the way to the Supreme Court and you'd have to persuade the Supreme Court that that was a good situation in which to depart from what the Court of Justice had previously said. Now that is where we stood under the 2018 Act and there are all kinds of complications with that once you start thinking about it. So let me just illustrate that point a little further. In many of these situations the legislation will not have changed. So you're faced not only with going to the Supreme Court to get the Supreme Court to adopt a different interpretation, but ex-hypothesis in circumstances where the legislation has not been changed by Parliament. So you've got to then ask yourself well why should the Supreme Court be persuaded to adopt a different interpretation when the legislation has not changed. Now if you think it's a barmy decision like Mitsubishi then you might say okay you've got a good shot, but if it's a more marginal call why should you get that? Particularly in circumstances where the way in which the Court of Justice operates is what they call a dialogue with the national courts. So they don't operate strict precedent, their case law evolves over time even though the legislation doesn't change. So if you have a whole series of decisions on a particular topic the case law doesn't say static, it evolves over time. So take communication to the public in the context of copyright where save bar we've got 20 to 25 decisions and over time the case law has evolved. Now we know that in future it will continue as we're old. Now what are you going to do in the UK? Are you going to ignore the future evolution in which case you're going to be freezing the Court of Justice jurisprudence at an arbitrary point in time or you're going to continue to follow it given that it will evolve in the future? Now we get the complication of the 2020 Act. The 2020 Act says this, we the government are going to take the power to direct that lower courts can depart from judgement of the Court of Justice. Now you can see the sense of that in one point from one perspective, which is suppose the government exercises that power and suppose it survives constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court, because of course there's an obvious objection to that, it's a Henry VIII clause writ large, so query whether that would survive a constitutional challenge under supreme court doctrines that already exist. But let's assume it does. You can see there's practical merit to it in the sense that you don't have to go to the Supreme Court to get a change in the way in which the law is interpreted. So from that point of view you can see there's a good argument for it. The downside to it is you have a Pandora's box scenario because let's suppose you say, ok, we're going to open it up to all courts in the land that go the opposite extreme. So then you've got the possibility of diverging interpretations of any court in the UK bearing in mind that within the UK we've got three different legal systems as it is. Don't forget that, England, Wales, Scotland, all. So what's that going to do? Go for it. Question.