Show Hide image

Watch: Comedian Jo Brand endorses Labour in a party election broadcast

"I'm choosing Labour".

Jo Brand, the comedian who used to be an NHS nurse, has backed Labour in a party election broadcast. The central message is protecting and improving the NHS. 

The clip features a voiceover by Doctor Who and Broadchurch actor David Tennant, who also spoke in Martin Freeman's broadcast.

The full transcript is below:

 
JB:                  There’s an election coming up. You might know that and we all have our own personal axes to grind. Mine if what’s going to happen to the NHS, not because of my undeniable status as a national fitness icon, but because once upon a time I used to be a nurse. And by the way, I’m sick of the way nurses get slagged off all the time in the press. I mean, come on, the vast majority of them are hard-working, committed, amazing human beings. Because to my mind a decent civilised society looks after its people when they’re ill and doesn’t present them with a bill at the end of it. But what I’m seeing now is little by little the NHS being pulled apart. By whom you might ask? A clue; it’s not the Labour Party. They started the whole thing. If you’ve tried to get an appointment with your doctor or been to an A&E recently you’ll know things are in a right mess.
 
                        What’s that mess all about? For a start a tonne of money wasted on a reorganisation so big you could see it from space and so hard to understand you’d have to be Professor Stephen Hawking to get your head round it. I give you the Tory Party. Let’s be honest about it, if they get back in the NHS as we know it wouldn’t survive the next five years.
 
                        Why? Because they’re planning even more extreme cuts; we know that. They don’t want to talk about it but it’s not hard to guess. What it boils down to is this: do we want a government that will back our NHS or not? I want to see our NHS make it to its 100th birthday and get its telegram from the Queen. Because that’s what it is, by the way, the NHS; it’s ours. It belongs to us all. We paid for it with our taxes and we want to keep it safe in our hands, not theirs. And that’s why I’m choosing Labour. 
 
Voiceover:     This election is a choice between the Tories’ failing plan and Labour’s better plan for working families. Britain succeeds when working people succeed. Vote Labour on Thursday May 7th        
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Brexiteers want national sovereignty and tighter borders – but they can't have both

The role of the European Court of Justice is a major sticking point in talks.

Why doesn't Theresa May's counter-offer on the rights of European citizens living and working in Britain pass muster among the EU27? It all comes down to one of the biggest sticking points in the Brexit talks: the role of the European Court of Justice.

The European Commission, under direction from the leaders of member states, wants the rights of the three million living here and of the British diaspora in the EU guaranteed by the European Court. Why? Because that way, the status of EU citizens here or that of British nationals in the EU aren't subject to the whims of a simple majority vote in the legislature.

This is where Liam Fox, as crassly he might have put it, has a point about the difference between the UK and the EU27, being that the UK does not "need to bury" its 20th century history. We're one of the few countries in the EU where political elites get away with saying, "Well, what's the worst that could happen?" when it comes to checks on legislative power. For the leaders of member states, a guarantee not backed up by the European Court of Justice is no guarantee at all.

That comes down to the biggest sticking point of the Brexit talks: rules. In terms of the deal that most British voters, Leave or Remain, want – a non-disruptive exit that allows the British government to set immigration policy – UK politicians can get that, provided they concede on money and rules, ie we continue to follow the directions of the European Court while having no power to set them. Britain could even seek its own trade deals and have that arrangement.

But the problem is that deal runs up against the motivations of the Brexit elite, who are in the main unfussed about migration but are concerned about sovereignty – and remaining subject to the rule of the ECJ without being able to set its parameters is, it goes without saying, a significant loss of sovereignty. 

Can a fudge be found? That the Article 50 process goes so heavily in favour of the EU27 and against the leaving member means that the appetite on the EuCo side for a fudge is limited. 

But there is hope, as David Davis has conceded that there will have to be an international guarantor, as of course there will have to be. If you trade across borders, you need a cross-border referee. If a plane goes up in one country and lands in another, then it is, by necessity, regulated across borders. (That arrangement has also been mooted by Sigmar Gabriel, foreign minister in Angela Merkel's government. But that Gabriel's centre-left party looks likely to be expelled from coalition after the next election means that his support isn't as valuable as many Brexiteers seem to think.)

On the Conservative side, a new EU-UK international body would satisfy the words of May's ECJ red line. On the EU27 side, that the body would, inevitably, take its lead from the treaties of the EU sans Britain and the ECJ would mean that in spirit, Britain would be subject to the ECJ by another name.

But it comes back to the Brexit dilemma. You can satisfy the voters' demand for non-disruptive control of British borders. You can satisfy political demand for sovereignty. But you can't have both. May – and whoever replaces her – will face the same question: who do you disappoint?

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496