Banging the kettle drum for the national interest

The Graudina journalist M Kettle is the son of a certain A Kettle, one of those curious British upper middle-class marxists we used to find in academia. A Kettle is long dead, which must have saved him much grief on seeing his son develop into a conventional ideologist.

M Kettle argues today that the sad Brexit White Paper will not convince anyone, but en route trots (sic) out some classic ideological themes:

The 98-page document does capture the moment when the government finally and formally admitted to the British public that our future relationship with the EU is supremely vital to the nation’s economy, prosperity and security. So vital, in fact, that it must take priority over all the unilateralist fantasies about what Brexit might have involved....it’s the moment when it said that, whether you are a leaver or a remainer, you just have to accept that Britain’s national interests cannot be separated from close and strong relations with Europe.

Haven't heard that old stuff about the obvious 'national interests' for a while from the Gradinau,nor how it all boils down to  some entirely abstract 'economy, prosperity and security'. Could be Churchill ! Kettle Senior would have demolished that in a trice. It is quite likely  that so would many Brexit voters -- WHOSE bleedin' propserity and security, they might ask.

Obviously, many critics at home will disagree and so they must be ignorant or traitorous. But the EC will also disagree:

There [sic -- beloved Graun misprint? Three?  There are? ] enormous gaps between the UK and EU positions on most of the issues in the document and every attempt to bridge those gaps may also trigger fresh revolts and accusations... the reality is that these ideas will not fly with the EU.

So let's follow it through here too.The EU in refusing is also opposing  the 'national interest' of the UK? This not entirely unreasonable conclusion will also dawn on many, I suspect

M Kettle seems to be left with hoping it will all go away and the UK will Remain, or that a People's Vote will reject the White Paper deal . But if so,what then? P Toynbee, sadly suffering a mild relapse but mercifully still not displaying Full Rant Mode, raised some of the obvious problems with a second referendum:

Don’t imagine deciding on a people’s vote is a simple matter either. Parliament will choose the crucial wording of the question – and what will a gridlocked Commons choose? Question one – should the UK accept the deal or remain in the EU? The Brexiters would scream betrayal and demand instead question two – accept the deal or crash out without one?...Others suggest a three-way question, with all three options, which sounds fair. Except that offers the lethal likelihood that the moderate vote splits between remainers and deal-accepters, letting a minority of crash-outers win.

There remains only schadenfreude, as Remainers smugly consume stockpiled olive oil and raise two fingers to the starving masses pressing at their windows. If only we had all listened to them!