Gwynoro yn dychwelyd nol i’w Sianel yn 2018. Yma yn trafod Brexit

Trin a thrafod  y tair wythnos gynta o’r flwyddyn.

Siarad am David Davis yn dweud fod yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn cynllunio ar gyfer 'Dim Del'.  Ond does dim syndod - pwy sydd wedo dweud ers blwyddyn fod ' dim del yn well na del wael'? - wrths gwrs Mrs May.

Yna yn yr Almaen Davis a Hammond yn dweud wrth busneswyr yno - 'dwedwch wrthym beth i chi am'. Ond dim y nhw sy'n gadael. Problem Llywodraeth Mrs May yw.

Yna Arlywydd Macron yn dweud yn eglur wrth Mrs May os ydych am gytundeb tebyg i nawr bydd rhaid derbyn telerau y Farchnad Sengl. 

Trafod nifer o bethau eraill hefyd.


A byddai Pont Boris i Calais yn gweithio?

‘’ AA’’?

‘’Helo, Helo ‘rwyf ar y bont tua milltir ar ddeg o Calais’’

Yn fy nyddiau pan yn swyddog ymchwil a chysylltiadau cyhoeddus i’r Blaid Lafur yng Nghymru 1969-70 ar ddiwrnodau hyfforddiant yn Transport House Llundain yn aml ‘roeddwn yn clywed bod darlun yn aml iawn yn werth llawer mwy na mil o eiriau. 

Wel, beth am hyn?

Derbyniodd y modurwr croesant y neges hon yn ôl

"Rydym yn flin iawn, mae ein synwyryddion yn canfod bod eich neges yn dod o ychydig heibio'r pwynt hanner ffordd. Ers Brexit ‘dydyn ddim yn darparu unrhyw wasanaethau ar gyfandir Ewrop. Byddwch yn gorfod cysylltu â gwasanaeth Ffrengig. Lwc dda "


Tony Blair : ‘What We Now Know’, what we have learnt about Brexit since 23rd June 2016.

Er yn Saesneg credaf fod i werth cyhoeddi'r erthygl hwn gan Tony Blair yn fy mlog Cymraeg. Mae yn gyflwyniad i adroddiad llawnach mae Global Institute wedi'i gyhoeddi. Ceir linc i'r adroddiad llawn ar y diwedd.

No one disputes the 2016 vote. And no one disputes that if it stands as the expression of British opinion, we will leave.

The issue is whether as facts emerge, as the negotiation proceeds and we have clarity over the alternative to present membership of the EU, we have the right to change our mind

I would like the Labour Party to be on the high ground of progressive politics, explaining why membership of the European Union is right as a matter of principle, for profound political as well as economic reasons. 

If we do leave Europe, the governing mind will have been that of the Tory right. But, if Labour continues to go along with Brexit and insists on leaving the Single Market, the handmaiden of Brexit will have been the timidity of Labour. 

Make Brexit the Tory Brexit. Make them own it 100%.

Image result for tony blair images2018 will be the year when the fate of Brexit and thus of Britain will be decided. 2017 was too early in the negotiation. By 2019, it will be too late.

Realistically, 2018 will be the last chance to secure a say on whether the new relationship proposed with Europe is better than the existing one. And to insist that the ‘deal’ contains the necessary detail to make the say meaningful.

I make no secret of my desire that Britain stays in the European Union.

This is the most important decision we have taken as a nation since the Second World War. It decides the destiny and fortunes of our children for years to come. And I believe passionately that by exiting the powerful regional bloc of countries on our doorstep, to whom we are linked physically by the Channel Tunnel, commercially by the Single Market, historically by myriad ancient ties of culture and civilisation, and politically by the necessity of alliance in an era which will be dominated by the USA in the West and China and India in the East, we are making an error the contemporary world cannot understand and the generations of the future will not forgive.

But the campaign in the first instance is not to reverse the decision; but to claim the right to change our minds once we see the terms of the new relationship.

No one disputes the 2016 vote. And no one disputes that if it stands as the expression of British opinion, we will leave.

The issue is whether as facts emerge, as the negotiation proceeds and we have clarity over the alternative to present membership of the EU, we have the right to change our mind; whether the ‘will of the people’ – this much abused phrase - is deemed immutable or is permitted to mutate as our perception of reality becomes better informed. 

When we voted in 2016, we knew we were voting against our present membership of the European Union, but not what the future relationship with Europe would be.

It was like having a General Election in which the question is ‘Do You Like the Government’? If that were the question, few incumbent Governments would be re-elected.

Once we know the alternative, we should be entitled to think again, either through Parliament or an election or through a fresh referendum, which will, of course, not be a re-run of the first because it will involve this time a choice based on knowledge of the alternative to existing EU membership.

Over the past months the Brexit landscape – hitherto obscured in the fog of claim and counter claim – is being illuminated.

We have now had the Budget prediction that, due to Brexit, economic growth is going to be below expectation not just this year but averaging 1.5% for the next 5 years in a row. This has not happened for over 30 years. This is in addition to the fall in our currency, fall in living standards and now the first falls in employment.

Concomitant with that was the admission that we would have less and not more to spend on the NHS and that, for the next years at least, we will not be getting money back from Europe but, rather, giving a large sum to it.

Then there was the Northern Ireland negotiation. The claim the issue is now ‘resolved’ is risible. It is merely postponed. Instead, the negotiation revealed the nature of the real choices we face and the tension at the heart of the Government’s negotiating position.

In essence, there are 4 options in approaching the Brexit negotiation:

1.    To re-think and stay, best done in a reformed Europe, where we use the Brexit vote as leverage to achieve reform.
2.    To exit the political structures of the EU, but stay in the economic structures ie the Single Market and Customs Union.
3.    To exit both the political and the economic structures of Europe but try to negotiate a bespoke deal which recreates the existing economic benefits and keeps us close to Europe politically.
4.    To exit both structures, to make a virtue of leaving, to negotiate a basic Free Trade Agreement and market ourselves as ‘Not Europe’.

Here is the rub: all the last three options are Brexit. But they have vastly different impacts and outcomes.

The Government has ruled out option 2, is seeking to negotiate option 3, but a substantial part of the Tory Party is prepared to go for option 4.
The problem with option 3 is that this is simply not negotiable without major concessions which make a mockery of the case for leaving.
The problem with option 4 is that it would involve significant economic pain as we adjust our economy to the new terms of trade.

It is absurd to say that it is undemocratic to demand that the people be free to have a say on what the final deal is, given the wide disparity in the forms of Brexit and their consequences.

How can we assess the true ‘will of the people’ before we know what the alternative to present EU membership looks like given that the alternatives have such different effects?

Northern Ireland is a metaphor for the central Dilemma of this negotiation: we are either in the Single Market and Customs Union; or we will have a Hard Border and Hard Brexit.

It is the difference between the status of Norway and that of Canada. In the Norway case, there is full access to the Single Market but with its obligations, including freedom of movement.

In the case of Canada, there is a standard Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with considerable easing of trade in goods but with border checks and without anything like the services access of the Single Market.

This really is a zero sum game: the nearer the Norway option, the more the obligations; the nearer the Canada option, the less the access.
It is not a matter of who is the toughest negotiator. The Dilemma flows naturally from the way the Single Market was created. It is a unique trading area with a single system of regulation and a single system of arbitration namely the ECJ.

The whole point of it is that it is not a FTA. It is qualitatively different.
So there is no way you can say I want to be out of its rules, but in its advantages.

The Single Market is one game; a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is another.

Think of it in this way. Suppose the English FA wants to arrange a football match with France.  There are many things to negotiate about: the venue, the timing, the price of the tickets etc. But suppose the FA then said to their French counterparts, we also want to negotiate whether we have 15 players on our team not 11. The French would say sorry but you have the wrong address, talk to the Rugby Federation.

Yet this seems to be the negotiating position of the Government.

David Davis asserts we will leave the Single Market and Customs Union but replicate ‘the exact same benefits’ in a new FTA.

Boris Johnson talks of diverging from Europe’s regulation but having frictionless border trade and full access to Europe’s services market.

The PM insists we will have the most comprehensive trade deal ever, weirdly forgetting we already have it.

Philip Hammond is arguing for close alignment to Europe after Brexit.

Meanwhile Liam Fox is cheerfully talking up the trade deals we will make once we are out of the Customs Union and away from that alignment.

Of course the FTA can be far reaching, though the more it covers the more complicated the negotiation and the greater the regulatory alignment. But it can never replicate the ‘exact same benefits’ of the Single Market; not without obedience to its obligations and regulation.

The concessions we were rightly forced to make in respect of Northern Ireland express and expose the Dilemma.

If we want freedom of movement of people across the border on the island of Ireland, we can do it but only by effectively abandoning border controls on migration. So someone could move from mainland Europe to Dublin to Belfast to Liverpool without any check.

It is often said by Brexiteers that Norway and Sweden don't have a hard border for the movement of people. It is true. But that is because Norway is part of the Single Market; and so accepts freedom of movement.

In any event, it is now virtually conceded that Britain needs the majority of the European migrant workers and as our study shows, Brexit is already seriously harming recruitment in vital sectors, including the NHS.

If we want free movement of goods, then Northern Ireland will have to be in a relationship with the EU where the rules of the Customs Union still apply.

But if we do that, then how can the UK be out of it?

This is the conundrum we will face across the board. How will financial services and other sectors be able to trade freely in Europe without regulatory alignment?
Suppose Europe even agrees to do this on a ‘pick and choose’ basis, the ‘alignment’ they will demand will be alignment with Europe’s rules.
And how will disputes in these circumstances be arbitrated other than through the involvement of the ECJ?

Once this central Dilemma becomes manifest during the negotiation, the split in the Government will re-emerge.

The PM will still be in favour of Option 3, making the concessions and trying to present them as consistent with ‘taking back control’. The true-believer Leavers will recognise the concessions contradict the essential reasons for leaving and will be in favour of then moving to option 4.

The British Civil Service is – or at least was in my time- probably the best in Europe. The problem isn't with the negotiators but with the negotiation.

The risk is that we end up with the worst of all worlds. We muddle along, alternating between options 3 and 4, depending on what part of the Tory Party is in the ascendency, try to ‘leave’ without really leaving, with a patchwork of arrangements which allows the Government to claim Brexit has been done; but which in reality only mean we have lost our seat at the table of rule-making.

This would be a grim outcome for the country.

And it is where the Labour Party faces its own challenge.

I would like the Labour Party to be on the high ground of progressive politics, explaining why membership of the European Union is right as a matter of principle, for profound political as well as economic reasons.

I disagree with our present position strategically.

But even tactically, it is mistaken.

First, because the Labour Party is saying that we too would do Brexit, we cannot attack its vast distractive impact. Labour could mount such a powerful assault on the Government’s record from the appalling state of the NHS to crime, which through neglect and failure to support the police is on the rise again, if we were saying to the country: here's the agenda which could be delivered for the people were not for the fact that all the energies of Government and substantial amounts of cash are devoted to Brexit.

And, second, it puts us in a vulnerable position when the Government concludes ‘the deal’ some time in 2018.

My bet is that the Government will try to negotiate an agreement which leaves much detail still to negotiate, because there is no way round the Dilemma. They will bank some low hanging fruit possibly e.g. tariff free access for goods (leaving for later non tariff issues). For Europe since they have a whacking great surplus with Britain on goods, this is a no-brainer.

But on access for services, which have driven most of our export growth over the last 20 years, are 70% of our economy, and where we have the surplus, we will be blocked without major concessions. Unless the Government has found some miraculous way round the Dilemma, they will probably try to emulate the December Northern Ireland ‘agreement’ and have some general headings – more aspiration than detail - with a lot to negotiate after March 2019 during the transitional period where Britain will continue to abide by the rules of the Single Market.

The Government will then say it is this deal or no deal and Labour will be left arguing that they would be better negotiators. This isn't credible.

And here Labour has its own ‘cake and eat it’ phrases. The Shadow Chancellor says we will not be in ‘the’ Single Market but ‘a’ Single Market. The Shadow Industry Minister talks of keeping the benefits of the Customs Union agreements but still being free to negotiate our own trade deals.

This is confusing terrain on which to fight.

Far better to fight for the right for the country to re-think, demand that we know the full details of the new relationship before we quit the old one, go to the high ground on opposing Brexit and go after the Tories for their failures to tackle the country’s real challenges.

Make Brexit the Tory Brexit.

Make them own it 100%.

Show people why Brexit isn't and never was the answer.

Open up the dialogue with European leaders about reforming Europe, a dialogue they're more than willing to have now because they realise Brexit also damages Europe economically and politically.

At every PMQs nail each myth of the Brexit campaign, say why the Tory divisions are weakening our country - something only credible if we are opposed to Brexit not advocating a different Brexit, and challenge the whole farce head on of a Prime Minister leading our nation in a direction which even today she can't bring herself to say she would vote for.

If we do leave Europe, the governing mind will have been that of the Tory right. But, if Labour continues to go along with Brexit and insists on leaving the Single Market, the handmaiden of Brexit will have been the timidity of Labour.

This is the link to the full document


Stori annifyr y Pasbort Glas, sy'n cynnwys Madam Brexit a Mistar Brexit

Mistar Brexit – Nigel Farage
Madam Brexit – Theresa May
 Ddydd Gwener 22 Rhagfyr 2017 cyhoeddodd Brandon Lewis, Gweinidog y Swyddfa Gartref y bydd y Llywodraeth yn ailwampio ein pasbort ar ôl Brexit yn Fawrth 2019 ac y bydd yr un newydd mor "uwch-dechnoleg a mwyaf diogel yr ydym erioed wedi gweld" yn medru gwrthsefyll twyll a ffugio. Ond hefyd i orfoledd mawr o fwrlwm cenedlaetholgar (Saeson) byddai'n dychwelyd ei liw i las.
Aeth Mr Lewis ymlaen i ddweud:
"Mae gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd (UE) yn rhoi inni gyfle unigryw i adfer ein hunaniaeth genedlaethol a ffurfio llwybr newydd ar gyfer ein hunain yn y byd"
Ar ddechrau'r 20fed ganrif y dechreuodd pasbortau fel y maent yn cael eu cydnabod heddiw ar gyfer eu defnyddio. Yr un fodern gyntaf ym Mhrydain oedd cynnyrch o Ddeddf Genedligrwydd Prydeinig a Statws Ail-lansia 1914 ond ychydig flynyddoedd yn ddiweddarach o ganlyniad i gytundeb ymhlith Cynghrair y Cenhedloedd i safoni pasbortau, cyhoeddwyd y pasbort "hen Glas" enwog ym 1920. Ar wahân i ychydig o addasiadau arhosodd yn symbol cyson o deithio rhyngwladol hyd nes iddo ei ddisodli gan fersiwn Ewropeaidd gyda lliw Bwrgwyn yn 1988.
Felly, y pwynt cyntaf i'w nodi yw bod y lliw glas blaenorol i’r pasbort Prydeinig ei hun yn gynnyrch tramor, ac roedd hefyd ‘roedd rhaid pennu cynnwys Ffrangeg. Yn ogystal dros amser y DU cyflwynodd rhai nodweddion fiometreg i gydymffurfio â gofynion anhepgor fesâu Americanaidd.
Roedd y saga gyfan yn rhu cyffrous o lawer i Fistar Brexit a ddywedodd fod newid i basbort glas y "fuddugoliaeth ddiriaethol cyntaf", ac yn dwyn i ben y "sarhad"; ac yn fynegiant o ‘’ein mawredd cenedlaethol’’. Yn wir, aeth pellach
'' Ni allwch fod yn genedl oni bai fod gennych y symbol hwn ''
Ymatebais iddo:
'Nonsens llwyr. Mae Cymru a'r Alban yn Genhedloedd balch iawn ac nad oes angen pasbort ar eu pobl i gydnabod a deall eu cenedligrwydd'’
Beth bynnag gwyddom nawr, i Fistar Farage, mae'r pasbort glas ydy’r beth pwysicaf iddo fe hyd yma a bod mwy neu lai cwblhau cam 1 y negodon Brexit o ail bwys i’r hyn mae yn ei alw'r 'fuddugoliaeth ddiriaethol cyntaf' ar gyfer adael y UE. Ie’n wir nonsens llwyr!
Ond yn fuan ar ôl hynny fe fynnodd Madam Brexit ei hun frolio a haeru fod y pasbort glas yn wir yn 'eiconig'

Aeth ymhellach gan ddweud:

'Bydd pasbort newydd y Deyrnas Unedig (DU) yn fynegiant o ein hannibyniaeth a sofraniaeth – fel symbol ein dinasyddiaeth o genedl fawr a balch. Dyna pam yr ydym wedi cyhoeddi y byddwn yn dychwelyd at y pasbort eiconig ar ôl gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn 2019.''.

Ar y Trydar ymatebais iddi:

'genedl fawr'? Mae yna bedair cenedl yn y DU.  Cymru yw fy ngwlad. Nid yw Prydain yn genedl' 

Ychwanegais hefyd:

'Mae'n gwbl gamarweiniol yn ogystal synio taw drwy adael y UE y medr Prydain newid lliw'r pasbort. Dim ond pennu geiriad y ddogfen wnaeth yr UE a rhai agweddau ar ei gynllunio. ‘Roedd ei liw yn fater i’r gwledydd yn unigol ac fe ellid fod Prydain wedi dewis lliw 'glas' ddegawdau yn ôl '' . Yn wir mae Croatia eisoes â phasbort glas!

Cofiwn fod y saga rhithdybiol hon mewn llinell hir o anwireddau a gafwyd ei mynegi a’i chyhoeddi yn y papurau tabloid a’r gwleidyddion gwrth – EU. Chi’n cofio am y ‘bananas heb eu plygu’, diwedd i 'selsig Prydain' a'r gwaharddiad ar blant wyth mlwydd oed chwythu balwnau.

Un o’r awduron amlwg oedd y person hollol ddigywilydd sydd nawr yn Ysgrifennydd Tramor, Boris Johnson, a ysgrifennodd amrywiaeth o anwireddau a ffeithiau cam arweiniol ac anghywir dros y blynyddoedd.

Bellach cynhaliodd Sky Data arolwg barn (sampl 1050) ar y Pasbort Glas ac o ganlyniad nodwyd fod y cyhoedd ym Mhrydain yn rhanedig ar bwysigrwydd cael lliw i’r pasbort fydd fel symbol o hunaniaeth genedlaethol.

Datgelodd yr arolwg:
-       Fod pedwar allan o bob deg o bobl yn meddwl ei fod yn ‘’symbol pwysig’’, tra teimlai 60 y cant nid ‘’yw'r mater yn bwysig.’’

-       Hefyd atebodd 29 y cant o’r rhai a arolygwyd ei fod yn "bwysig iawn" ond ‘roedd 44 y cant yn credu nad ‘’yw'n bwysig o gwbl’’.

-       Ymhlith pobl ifanc 18-34 oed ‘roedd 73 y cant yn meddwl ei fod yn ‘ddibwys’, tra bod 27 y cant yn dweud ei bod ‘yn bwysig.’

-       Arfarniad pobl 55 oed a throsodd oedd bod 53 y cant yn credu ei bod yn ‘’symbol pwysig’’ o hunaniaeth genedlaethol gyda 47 y cant yn dweud ei bod yn ‘’ddibwys’’

Dros y pedwar awr ar hugain diwethaf ‘roedd y wasg a'r cyfryngau cymdeithasol wedi cael eu gorweithio dros fater y pasbort glas.
Felly erbyn bore yma ‘roedd yn amlwg fod y Swyddfa Gartref ar y droed ôl ac o’r herwydd cadarnhawyd fod y DU yn wirfoddol wedi mabwysiadu meini prawf cyffredin y pasbort gan y Gymuned Economaidd Ewropeaidd blynyddoedd maith yn ôl. I’r gwrthwyneb wrthododd Croatia i newid lliw glas tywyll ei phasbortau nhw ar ôl ymuno'r UE yn 2013, gyda'r llywodraeth yn dweud pryd hynny "safbwynt yr UE yw nad oes dim rhwymedigaeth." i newid lliw.
Felly degawdau yn ôl gallai'r DU fod wedi gwneud yr un peth.

Dengys y digwyddiad ffôl hwn fod mater y pasbort glas yn fwy pwysig i’r llywodraeth na nifer o bethau eraill ac maent yn hollol fodlon i fasnachu lliw ein pasbortau heb boeni am golli gwarantu teithio syml, dim fisa a’r hawl i fyw a gweithio yn yr UE – heb sôn am y manteision economaidd ehangach sy’n deillio o fod yn aelodau o’r UE.


Gwynoro yn westai penblwydd Dewi Llwyd

Ar achlysur penblwydd

Dewi Llwyd yn holi Gwynoro am rhai agweddau o’i fywyd –

Magwraeth, y capel a’r pentref, gwleidyddiaeth, Cymru a mwy

Dyma'r linc



Gwleidyddiaeth Cymru tua diwedd 2017

Gwynoro yn  -

Trin a trafod y pleidiau yn enwedig LLafur a Plaid Cymru;

Sialens i'r gwleidyddion; Datganoli a Ffederaliaeth;

Rhaid peidio fod yn foddhaol gyda cael o dro i'w gilydd briwsion o bwerau bellach;
Peryglon Brexit;

Democratiaeth a'r Refferendwm 2016;

Dal i ymladd dros aros yn Ewrop


Mrs Thatcher a Mrs May

Elystan Morgan a Gwynoro yn trafod y cymariaethau a'r gwahaniaethau rhwng Thatcher a May…


Trafod dyfodol gwledydd Prydain? Cylchgrawn Golwg

Ymddangosodd yr erthygl ganlynol gan Glyndŵr Cennydd Jones yn y Cylchgrawn Golwg ar 21 Medi 2017—wythnos 20fed pen-blwydd y bleidlais i sefydlu y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru. Diolch i'r Golwg am gopi electronig o'r darn.


Elystan Morgan yn trafod cwrs datganoli dros ugain mlynedd a’r dyfodol

Y sefyllfa sydd yn ein hwynebu yn 2017

Am lawer yn rhy hir 'rydym wedi erfyn am friwsion datganoli a bellach mae'n dra angenrheidiol y dylem godi ein disgwyliadau

Yn siarad am effaith a’r meddylfryd tu ôl i Ddeddf Cymru ...

‘Ar ôl rhoddi cyfansoddiad i Gymru sy’n trosglwyddo pob awdurdod arall na’r rhai sy’m hymwneud a bywyd y Deyrnas Unedig sef olyniaeth y Goron, amddiffyn a pholisi tramor, mae’n saffru’r cyfan drwy lwytho ar Gymru gant naw deg a phedwar o eithriadau gydag ugeiniau ohonynt yn ymwneud a materion hollol leol.

Ni fu i’r Alban na Gogledd Iwerddon gorfod dioddef y sarhad hwn.

Trwy wneud hyn y mae’r Llywodraeth yn torri rheol, euraidd datganoli, sef fôr rhediad dyfroedd (‘watershed’) o synnwyr a chyfiawnder yn dweud yn glir beth a ddylasai fod yn fater lleol a beth ddylasai fod yn gyfrifoldeb i’r fam Senedd yn San Steffan.

Felly, yr irony ydy, nad yw'r hyn a gynigir yn Ddeddf Cymru yn enghraifft o ddatganoli pellach ond yn hytrach yn ymhlygiad llachar o ddibrisio a glanweithio holl egwyddor datganoli’

Yna edrych blaen i’r dyfodol a’r hyn y dylasai gwleidyddion a phobl Cymru anelu ato gan gymeryd i ystyriaeth y peryglon sydd ynghlwm wrth fwriadau’r llywodraeth yn Mesur Gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd.

Dwed Elystan ...

‘Rwy'n credu'n gryf fod cenedlaetholdeb yng nghyd-destun Cymru fel gwladgarwch nag ŵyr unrhyw gasineb o unrhyw genedl arall. Dyna beth ddylasai cenedl Cymru a chenedlaetholdeb Cymreig ar eu gorau fod. Fy apêl pan ydym yn ystyried dyfodol Cymru yw am i ni feddwl yn fawr. Os ydych yn meddwl yn fawr byddwch yn cyflawni rhywbeth gwerth chweil; Os ydych yn meddwl yn fach, yna fydd yr hyn a gyflawnir yn llai na'r hynny a disgwyliwyd.

Am lawer yn rhy hir 'rydym wedi erfyn am friwsion datganoli a bellach mae'n dra angenrheidiol y dylem godi ein disgwyliadau i fod yn deilwng o'n sefyllfa fel cenedl aeddfed, p'un ai ei fod yn cychwyn ar daith drwy fodelau o ffederaliaeth neu Statws Ddominiwn. Dyna'r sefyllfa sydd yn ein hwynebu yn 2017.’