After four and a half years of bitter debate and seemingly endless negotiation, the United Kingdom finally — effectively — leaves the European Union on January 1 2021, quitting both the single market and customs union.
This chart set for midnight on New Year’s Day, the moment the country leaves, to my mind encapsulates the situation and the choices for this newly independent, offshore island.
What stands out is the close opposition between a Leo Moon and the Jupiter Saturn conjunction in Aquarius along the 5th/11th house axis. This is part of a near T square involving Mars but especially Uranus in Taurus in the 8th house.
The Moon is also the ruler of the MC, another indicator of government and the country’s aims. There is a great amount of tension and pent up energy and dynamism here, which could potentially be explosive politically and economically.
Nevertheless, here too is the opportunity for a new beginning; the people will wish for more self determination as a response to the restrictions of 2020, and the prospect of a fresh approach in regard to our ideals and running our political and financial institutions — ourselves and the way we use money.
New Parties — Politics Transformed?
The country as a whole will begin to feel more confident, speculative and patriotic but in surprising ways.
New, or transformed political parties are likely to emerge and perhaps make an immediate impact, such will be the appetite of the people for a fresh, egalitarian and more local approach to politics. Following 2020, I think the people will trust central government less and will want to run their own affairs more closely.
The journey is clearly not going to be easy, however. With Uranus in Taurus, financial affairs are generally chaotic all over the world. In the 8th house of this chart, the UK’s ability to control the situation and steer a steady course is limited, bringing shocks and surprises through unravelling events the country inherits from other areas out of its control.
Read All The Small Print
Venus, the ruler of the chart, is in Sagittarius in the third house separating from a tricky aspect to dissolute Neptune in the sixth. So whilst there is a clear need for freedom of approach in general terms, there will also be much deception and false hope, which should advise the government and the people to read all the small print of any new deals and alliances.
The trade deal announced with the EU on Christmas Eve, which is due to be debated in Parliament, needs to be examined closely. Other trade deals are likely to be more straightforward and will represent great opportunities for building the foundations of a brighter future, as seen symbolised by the Great Conjunction in Aquarius in the 5th house.
Steady As She Goes
The Sun and Mercury in Capricorn in the fourth house may help to ground the country’s approach with some realism, especially as Mercury is applying to a positive aspect to Neptune, hopefully indicating that the government will have enough wits about it to read the situation more clearly, be forewarned.
However, with Pluto’s continued presence in Capricorn, the overall political situation remains distorted and dangerous, threatening the fabric and foundation of the country and the world.
I think January 1 2021 represents the ‘good ship’ Britannia’s new voyage into uncharted waters. Steady as she goes might be the apt advise to the captain. It will be a bit of a rocky journey, though not without opportunity; we are already seeing this in the number of trade deals in the offing. The future certainly favours the brave, but do we have the right people at the helm?
Whilst Brexit appears to be basically achieved, it is still unclear as to the nature of Britain’s relationship with the EU following our exit.
But of course, this has been an extraordinary year for other reasons. The government’s, and in particular the Prime Minister’s handling of events of this year, have come under much critical scrutiny.
I don’t recall any government with such a majority ever falling from grace so quickly. It is difficult to see it recovering, even in the long term. For whilst there does not have to be another general election for four years, I think that the present paradigm of political parties have run their course.
In my opinion, the winner of the next election, which may not be that far away despite the governments majority, will likely be the leader of new party.
Since the end of June 2016 when the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, Brexit has been a gaping wound in Britain’s and Europe’s body politic.
This controversial phenomenon has not only divided opinion and saturated headlines in Great Britain but frequently made the news worldwide too, especially in regard to some of the more unseemly behaviour in Britain’s much vaunted ‘Queen of Parliaments’. Not even the advent of the corona virus in the late winter of this year (2020) could dispel the ongoing saga of Britain’s often toxic negotiations with Brussels from the media. As things stand the United Kingdom will leave the EU at the end of the year — with or without a deal.
What is interesting to students of the extant historical record, is that Brexit marks one more incidence of the British (and particularly the English) people’s often strained relationship with continental European politicians and institutions, a factor which often threatens the unity within the United Kingdom too.
An Island Mentality
Intrigued, I began to look back in history to search for the first incidence of this ‘phenomenon’. When and why did it begin? Is it simply a matter of Britain being an island, physically separated from the continent, creating what is often called an ‘island mentality’? I think this would be a far too simplistic explanation, although clearly one would expect a recognisably different culture to develop in a more remote geographic location such as Britain, especially when travelling was more difficult.
Great Britain became an island some time after the Ice Age or Pleistocene era ended and the Holocene began. One could argue that this was the original geographical Brexit, setting the scenic context upon which all later human political dramas were to play out.
It seems to me that the first popularly known occurrence of a nascent sense of Britishness stems back to the first century AD in the person we now know as Boudica, formerly Boadicea. By Britishness I do not mean it in the modern sense, of course. There was no nation of Britain, no England back then. The idea of the nation state was still more than a millennium into the future.
Freeing the Yoke
However this rather infamous punctuation in British history seems to encapsulate something essentially to do with independence, a sense of wishing to be free from the yoke of abusive foreign rule. To give a more recent example, I am sure that many Americans still look back favourably to the Boston Tea Party as something which epitomized the unacceptable face of colonialism, to the point where feelings boil over, resulting in more drastic measures being taken.
It is often implied that the British of that time were nothing more than some rag tag collection of ‘Celtic’ tribes, wholly inferior militarily and culturally to Caesar and his legions. Obviously this was not true; what the British lacked was not so much cultural sophistication but perhaps Roman political guile and ambition of never ending conquest.
It was the Emperor Claudius who successfully invaded Britain in AD 43, marking the beginning of the province of Britannia, which, interestingly, never permanently included what we now call Scotland.
By AD 60 it would appear that Roman rule was getting well established. The Britain the Romans were occupying constituted a series of kingdoms, perhaps broadly similar to what is called the Heptarchy of later Anglo-Saxon England. The Romans had a long established method of ruling which involved so-called client kingdoms, where the ruler was nominally independent, yet subservient to the Emperor. It was a way of avoiding spending too much time and resources on outright military conquest. Each ruler was encouraged to accept Romanisation and all the cultural benefits this civilisation allegedly brought with it, thereby becoming a beacon for what some called Pax Romana.
The system appeared to be working reasonably well until a certain king, Prasutagus of the Iceni tribe, who were centred around what is now the county of Norfolk in East Anglia, died around AD 60. His will apparently left the kingdom to his two daughters and the Roman Emperor, who happened to be Nero. However, the will appears to have been ignored and the kingdom illegally seized, Prasutagus’ grieving wife and queen, Boudica, was flogged and her two daughters raped, at least according to the Roman historian Tacitus, although Dio Cassius states that the dispute arose through the withdrawal of loans. He also mentions two cities being devastated, not three, which is clearly an error. It is difficult to envisage the sheer swiftness and vehemence of Boudica’s reaction as being in response to a ‘mere’ financial matter.
So whatever the actual cause of the revolt, it is quite clear the Roman authorities in Britain were not expecting Boudica, the Iceni, the Trinovantes and other British tribes, to respond in the violent and brutal manner they did. Queen Boudica, at least according to Dio Cassius, would seem to have been quite an astonishing presence:
“she was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: She wore a great twisted golden necklace, and a tunic of many colors, over which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch. Now she grasped a spear, to strike fear into all who watched her…” – Dio Cassius
Even allowing for a little exaggeration in the above description, she was clearly no pushover. Even today, nearly two millennia later, East Anglia in eastern England has a strong regional identity, a distinct cultural life and accent, not always enamoured with the prognostications of central government only a hundred miles away. Whether East Anglia still produces such women of renown, however, is open to question.
Chariots and Woad
Unfortunately, we do not know the details of how Boudica organised herself militarily, but as a young British noblewoman she would have been familiar in the arts of war. Within a short space of time the sense of injustice and mounting anger against Roman misrule led to the formation of an army of immense size.
We do know that the ancient British had long used the chariot in battle and that they covered themselves in blue woad, to give that distinctive, terrifying appearance. Whilst the Roman army is rightly considered virtually peerless, it is quite clear that the British chariot would have been very effective too.
Very quickly, Boudica appears to have identified key sites for attack, the first being Camulodunum, or present day Colchester, which was the original capital city of the new province. This is where the temple to the Emperor Claudius, the conqueror of Britain, was established and in Boudica’s eyes would surely have represented a strike at the heart of the oppressor.
Unfortunately for the Romans the then governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was hundreds of miles away on important campaign against the Druids in what is now north west Wales on the isle of Anglesey, or Mona. Although Suetonius immediately scurried back towards London when he heard of the attack, he had insufficient army numbers to defend the city, toward which Boudica’s huge host was relentlessly heading.
A part of the Roman Legio lX HIspana were the only troops who stood in Boudica’s way and were swiftly dealt with, leaving London resigned to its fate. Those who could escape the newly founded commercial capital would have done so. Those who remained were shown no mercy whatsoever.
Following this, the victorious British army, obviously fired up with bloodlust, marched northward towards Verulamium, present day St. Albans in Hertfordshire, to carry on their serial rape, torture, murder and arson. The city was reduced to ashes like London and Colchester before it. Once again, governor Suetonius could only step aside whilst he began to muster enough troops to face the British rebels in an open pitch battle.
The Final Battle
Now whilst it may not be proven, for other sites must be considered, the location of this battle is thought to have been at present day Mancetter in the English West Midlands. Probably luring the now over confident British army to a battlefield of his own choice, Suetonius’ much smaller force were decisively victorious, ending the short but brutal rebellion. Boudica allegedly killed herself, though we can’t be entirely sure. Historian Dio Cassius stated that she died through illness. The number of Britons who died on that day must have been enormous. Those killed in London, Colchester and St. Albans would have been even more.
The Emperor Nero did briefly consider withdrawing Roman troops from the province, yet the decisive nature of Suetonius’s victory prevented this. The revolt, whilst provoking a great deal of initial suppression from the Roman authorities, would also have tempered their rule in the long run.
The Epitome of British Resolve?
Boudica has become the stuff of British legend, with a well known statue of her and her violated daughters now standing in London. Indeed it was the Victorians, who built that statue, who did most to resurrect her memory and status, a reminder that the suppressed will only take so much before taking up arms themselves. When the Roman legions were finally withdrawn, 350 years later, it was at their own behest, not through the forces of insurrection.
Queen Boudica’s rebellion ultimately failed, yet traces of its brutality still remain to this day. Although she must have taken up arms initially to seek revenge for her own and her daughters’ defamation, she has become a British heroine, the epitome of some spirit which is uniquely… well, British. It is a spirit which is continually under threat, yet nevertheless periodically renewed. Brexit, whatever one’s opinion of it, is simply the latest incarnation of that ‘bulldog spirit’ which represents Great Britain — at least in part.
So finally it appears to be happening, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is due to formally leave the EU at 11pm GMT on Friday January 31 2020.
Of course, there will be an ongoing debate during 2020 as to the nature of the final ‘deal’ between the two powers, whether it is based on the ‘Canada Free Trade Deal’, or even leaving on WTO terms at the end of the year in the event that no agreement has been made.
Nevertheless the UK is leaving, after much stuttering and fall out and two general elections since the referendum vote in June 2016.
But from my own astrological perspective, what does the leaving time and date signify, if anything?
Libra the balance but will we see justice?
I will start with the ascendant, or rising sign of the chart for 11pm, January 31, set for Westminster, the seat of the UK Parliament. We have Libra rising, a very political sign to do with justice, diplomacy and legality. It is no surprise that Libra has more than its fair share of politicians, lawyers and teachers with the Sun and other important significators in that sign.
Libra rising sets the political character of the moment, the scales, justice, a sense of something being ratified legally and that it has not been an easy course to reach this point. There has been, and there will continue to be, much debate.
However, Venus, the ruler of Libra and thereby ruler of the chart, is in Pisces in the 6th house, close to Neptune and in challenging aspect to an inflammatory Mars in Sagittarius.
Whither the Health Service?
In mundane astrology the 6th house is often seen to signify the nation’s health, perhaps the state of the UK’s health service, and we know how contentious the talk has been in regard to this, with claims that any future deal with the USA might see terms which gives Washington access to and power to ‘meddle’ with what many still regard to be one of the best health systems in the world.
Astrologically at any rate, it seems clear that the state of the health service, plus the Police and armed forces and their future role, will be the source of much angst in months and years to come.
Although Venus is said to be well placed in Pisces, the proximity of Neptune and the aggravation from Mars does indicate weakness, perhaps a continuing debate, encouraged and enflamed by the media, about as to whom can have access to free health care once, and if, free movement ends.
Radical Aquarius – radical government?
The Sun, always a prime factor in any chart, is in Aquarius in the 5th house of speculation, sport and leisure, a very positive placement I feel. Like Libra, Aquarius is an air sign, fitting well with the current Prime Minister Johnson’s air dominated chart.
Aquarius is forward looking, fair minded, radical and so we might well see a strong push towards political reformation, something which probably all sides would concede needs to be done. Just how far this might go is anyone’s guess.
There is much talk about reforming the House of Lords, even to the point of questioning its very existence. The state of the union has also been talked about, with Scotland clearly disaffected with being taken out of the EU as part of the UK.
Will Scotland be able to wave ‘tata’?
One wonders whether one of the reforms might be to do with the constitution of the UK and the relationship between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Could we be heading towards a more federal union? Will Scotland be granted ‘special’ status within the UK to placate its push towards independence?
As the 5th house rules speculation and the stock market, or partly so, we could see changes here too, though the continuing health of it would seem to be assured, depending on world economic trends.
Sport and leisure activities are also likely to be strongly emphasised during the next phase.
Within the next few days, Part 2 in this series will continue to investigate this chart and the changing nature and role of the United Kingdom in the coming years.
copyright Leofwine Tanner 2020
If you would like your own astrological report, or one creating for someone else, please contact me on firstname.lastname@example.org
The long awaited conjunction between Saturn and Pluto becomes exact on January 12 2020, which also includes the Sun and Mercury, increasing its significance.
There is a Saturn Pluto conjunction very 33 to 37 years or so. Examples of others occurred in 1914, 1947 and 1982 and much has been written about these ‘coinciding’ with the beginning of WW1, The Cold War and the economic depression of the early 1980s.
However, this one seems especially dark to me. Put simply, in astrological terms, this planetary activity is taking place in Capricorn.
The goat represents the milieu of the status quo, business and politics. Saturn is in its own sign, very powerful, and represents authority and establishment.
Pluto, so much demeaned by astronomers for now being classed as a ‘minor planet’, shows no signs of having any corresponding minor impact in astrology. Most positively, the Saturn Pluto conjunction could be said to symbolise restructuring.
Pluto is about power and it tears down, exposes, transforms, brings forth what has been long concealed, but also intensifies. From this it isn’t difficult to see that is just the kind of thing that has been happening, particularly in the world of politics and it hasn’t been pretty.
In the UK we have Brexit, Britain’s exit from the EU apparently recently endorsed by the Conservative’s landslide win in the General Election. The country stands to leave at 11pm on January 31 2020.
There is much corresponding unrest in other European countries, violent protests and people questioning the future of the EU itself.
We have political chaos in America, where the President has been impeached, yet the process has not yet passed fully to the Senate – perhaps because it doesn’t stand a chance of being ratified, although at times the proceedings on all sides seems to beggar belief.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that I think the best outcome from all this is that we shall see the foundation of new political structures in the ensuing weeks, months and years.
I just hope and pray that this process of political transformation occurs as peaceably as possible and that we, the people, come out of it properly represented and wholly informed.
Ever since 2008, when the bottom fell out of the financial markets, we have been living in one of the longest economic downturns ever.
The economies of the ‘western world’ have been largely propped up by printing money and cutting back on services – AUSTERITY! Yes, it was the mantra.
That’s why, as in the UK for example, there’s a manifestation of potholes in the roads which never seem to get repaired.
So why now, in this election, has austerity suddenly been cancelled? Even the Tories, often the champions of cut backs, have promised to spend billions on the NHS and put up the minimum wage above £10 an hour. Conservatives?
Don’t believe it
Naturally, from the evidence of the past, we have to treat each manifesto promise with extreme caution. However, the government of any complexion is promising to spend like there’s no tomorrow – and thereby borrow – billions and more billions to add to the already catastrophic levels of debt….. when there is little or no sign of an economic upturn.
It has been argued that large government spending schemes, like improving the infrastructure, can actually kick start the economy and create many jobs. This may be so, but if so why has it taken so long for this to happen?
Over the previous decade we have all taken hits and cut backs, the medicine of austerity, whilst the economy has been essentially bumping along the bottom, only to be told now that even the Conservatives have ‘seen the light’ and we can spend ourselves out of the doldrums.
The cynic in me says I should not believe a word of it.
On July 17 1453, the same year that Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire fell, England and English influence was effectively kicked out of France for good following the decisive Battle of Castillon.
It was another example of the see-saw, in-out relationship the island of Great Britain (in this case the major part of it called England) has had with the continent for a long time.
Ever since 1066, when William of Normandy conquered England and became its king, there had been strong ties to France. However, when Normandy was lost in 1204 during the reign of King John, successive English kings had hankered for its return; they were after all directly descended from the conqueror.
English invasion and victory
By the late 1330s King Edward III, who was himself largely of French ancestry, was in a position to invade France following a dispute about the long held English territory of Gascony in SW France.
In June 1340 Edward III won a decisive naval victory against the French at the Battle of Sluys, which marked the beginning of the so called Hundred Years War. By the end of the decade, following even more crushing victories at the Battles of Crecy and Poitiers, Edward was in control of large parts of France and even had the French king John II as a prisoner.
Then the so called ‘Black Death’ intervened in 1348/9. The treaty of Bretigny was eventually signed in 1360, leaving England in full charge of an expanded area in SW France. This marked the end of the first phase of the war, an often punctuated stalemate lasting fifty years, which saw France regain the upper hand diplomatically and make incursions into English territory.
The English conquest of France
Then in 1415, just two years after ascending the English throne, King Henry V re-ignited the conflict with his invasion of France. Following an unlikely victory at Agincourt that October, Henry went on, over the next couple of years, to re-conquer Normandy and push on from there to take large areas of northern France to add to those in the SW. Henry had become the undisputed master of France and heir to the French throne, once Charles VI had died. Unfortunately for Henry he was to die six weeks before Charles, leaving the throne of both England and France to his year old son, Henry VI in 1422.
Although the English held on to many of their French possessions for another generation, the loss of Burgundian support and the weakness of character of Henry VI, ensured their eventual defeat and removal from France and the continent of Europe, leaving only little Calais an English possession until 1558.
Out of Europe once again
So England and Great Britain had exited militarily and politically once again, though the monarchs of England would retain their claim on the French throne for several centuries after the defeat. England became more insular after this point, and following the disastrous Wars of the Roses which occurred immediately after the loss of France, the country became more obviously a nation with a nationalistic outlook.
The underrated King Edward IV, one of the Yorkist kings of England, attained enough stability in his kingdom to successfully invade France once more in 1475. However, he was in turn bought off by the French king Louis XI with a huge ‘bribe’ in the Treaty of Picquigny and returned home with his army.
Only the spiritual and ecclesiastical links remained across Europe and Great Britain, the power of the Roman Catholic Church. But even this, as it turned out, was not sacrosanct – but that’s another story in the list of this island’s fractious in-out relationship with Europe.
When King John of England lost Normandy, Anjou and Brittany in northern France in 1204 AD to King Philip II Augustus of France, it was to have great repercussions back home in England.
The territories of Normandy and Anjou had been at the very heart of the great Angevin Empire, which at its zenith during the reign of John’s father, Henry II (1154 – 1189 AD), stretched from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees.
Although John retained Gascony and Aquitaine in the south west of France after 1204, lands that had come into the possession of his family through his father’s marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, the loss of Normandy and Anjou seemed symbolic of a catastrophic failure.
Normandy of course was the dukedom brought into the fold of the English crown with William the Conqueror’s victory at Hastings in 1066. John’s father, Henry II, was from Anjou, meaning that this dukedom also became a crown possession when he acceded to the throne, even though Kings of England still had to swear fealty to the Kings of France for their possession of the dukedoms of Normandy and Anjou.
A sudden sense of separation?
So there was definitely a great sense of sudden separation felt, not merely with John, but also among the vast majority of the ruling aristocracy of England, who were overwhelmingly of Anglo Norman or Anglo Angevin descent, and who had lands and familial ties to these French dukedoms.
Now these barons and other aristocrats had to make a choice: Were they English or French? Whilst the ties between England and northern France remained to some degree, there began to grow a sense of English nationhood from this point in history.
Anglo Normans began to feel increasingly English, often marrying English spouses. Those left in Normandy and Anjou became truly French once more. From 1066 to 1204, the English Channel was a connection between two areas essentially of the same realm: Now it was a great divide between two kingdoms growing apart, who would within a hundred and fifty years embark upon the Hundred Years’ War.
Magna Carta and civil war
Nevertheless, despite the loss of Normandy, for over ten years King John, perhaps foolishly, persisted in trying to regain his lost French territories, causing crippling taxation and making powerful enemies at home and abroad.
This would eventually lead to Magna Carta in 1215, where the barons tried to curtail the power of the king against them.
However, when John began to refuse to follow the new ‘rules’, civil war broke out, ultimately leading to the baron’s inviting Prince Louis, the son of King Philip Augustus, to England with an army of several hundred ships.
A new French conquest
By 1216, much of England was in the control of Prince Louis and the barons and it seemed very likely for a while that the ties between the two kingdoms were about to be even more strongly cemented by this new conquest, exactly one hundred and fifty years since the first one.
Then, in October 1216, King John suddenly died. The English barons who had not supported Louis began to resist and gain more support and the French barons were finally defeated as support for Prince Louis began to slip away.
The barons probably realised that they now had John’s young son, Henry III, to control and get what they wanted without trying to justify the arrival of a young French king and all his staff and the unpopularity that this would undeniably bring.
England’s ‘in out’ relationship with the continent
So within twelve short years, England had effectively been cut off from the continent with the loss of Normandy and Anjou, notwithstanding the retention of distant lands in south west France, then came with a hair’s breadth of being fully subsumed within the sphere of influence of kingdom of France, and then finally reneged on the latter idea altogether, ultimately choosing ‘independence’.
Once more England found itself essentially alone, cut off, though independent and with a growing sense of nationhood, perhaps a little bit like Brexit Britain might be?
The period of Roman rule of Britain is quite clearly defined. Although Julius Caesar had attempted invasion twice a century before, it was the Emperor Claudius who successfully invaded Britain in 43 AD, marking the beginning of the province of Britannia, which, interestingly, did not permanently include what we now call Scotland.
The provincial borders came to be defined by Hadrian’s Wall in the north, created in the early 2nd century AD, and then quite fleetingly by the Antonine Wall in the Scottish midlands.
Boudicca had attempted to destroy the Roman power in the land with her rebellion of 60 – 61AD, but it ultimately failed, although it was a clear sign that Britons were not so easily assimilated into the empire, nor keen on the notion of being ruled by a distant dictator.
A crumbling empire in the west
By the late 4th century, however, several legions had already been withdrawn, leaving the province more open to attack from the Picts to the north and by Germanic raiders, the Anglo Saxons, along the eastern and southern seaboard.
By 410 AD the situation had got so serious that British leaders requested help from the then Roman emperor Honorius. However, due to his ongoing struggles nearer home in Italy and the western empire in general, trying to repulse invasions by other Germanic tribes, he sent his ‘Rescript of Honorius’ back to the Britons, basically telling them that they had to look after themselves, because he was in no position to do so.
Although subsequent Roman leaders probably wanted to re-establish proper links to this far flung province, they never did because the empire in the west was slowly falling apart, finally ending in 476 AD.
So Britain, or at least most of it, had been under Roman rule for over 350 years, a significant time. Now it was cast adrift and largely at the mercy of invasions from the east and north.
The beginnings of England
The Romano British warlords, ‘King’ Arthur quite likely being one of them, did their best to defend the country. However, gradually, as more Angles, Saxons and Jutes (and others) who had been living to the north of the empire, settled over the next two centuries, the foundations of the country we now call England began to take hold, in the form of petty kingdoms ruled by Germanic warlord aristocrats.
Of course, we can’t compare this history too much to what is happening now. For one thing, the Romans left Britain, whereas today’s Brexit is the other way round, Britain leaving the EU, allegedly. And then there’s the duration factor too. For example, the United Kingdom has only been in the Common Market/European Economic Union/European Union since January 1 1973 – not 350 years.
Britain may leave the EU but Romans abandoned Britain
And of course, the Roman takeover was largely hostile, whereas Britain’s deferring of powers to the EU has been granted peaceably, albeit foolishly according to a growing number of British patriots.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting comparison and another example of the island of Great Britain being a part of Europe but always likely to be either less well thought of by central Europeans, abandoned, forgotten, or even seeking to go its own way, looking beyond with an independent spirit.
One can imagine the uneasy feeling of the people of Britain 1600 years ago, knowing that the protection they had known for so long had been withdrawn.
Do those who want to remain in the EU today feel the same? And do Brexiteers, like some of the populace back at the end of Roman Britain, feel more of a sense of opportunity, the chance to create something freer?
So finally the United Kingdom has an election to ‘clear the air’ surrounding Brexit and Parliament. But will it solve anything?
The chart set for the opening of the polls at 7 am, December 12 2019 at Westminster, London, is fascinating, not merely for the fact that a full Moon has just occurred, a sign of culmination and change.
In this chart Sagittarius is rising. The first house in mundane astrology is usually indicative of the nation as a whole. I would tentatively state that this indicates that the nation is in a good, expansive mood, ready to move on, make positive progress, Sagittarius being the mutable fire sign. The sun is also in Sagittarius, underscoring this point.
A nation more informed and expansive?
Mercury is within orbs of a conjunction with the rising degree, perhaps a sign that the nation is at last more fully informed, open minded and conscious about all the pros and cons of Brexit, what type of Brexit it wants and where the country as a whole should be going. Mercury is, however, in the sign of its detriment, which traditionally is less positive.
Interestingly Mercury is ruler of the 10th house, which (along with the MC or midheaven) is to do with the government. Maybe this is a further indication that the government has succeeded in tapping the mind of the nation and its people during the campaign.
With Sagittarius rising, Jupiter is the ruling planet. Jupiter is found in Capricorn (the sign of its fall) in the 2nd house of the economy and finance. This would, by and large, seem positive (despite the fact Jupiter is in the sign of its fall), that practical (Capricorn) considerations have been made and discussed and that there may be serious potential for some important trade deals (2nd house) in the offing, for example.
Jupiter makes a fairly tight positive trine aspect to Uranus in the 6th house, which may indicate that the government could pull certain surprising ‘rabbits out of hats’ in regard to trade and the economy in general, perhaps with the promise of securing large numbers of extra jobs in its manifesto, for instance – a usual ploy though.
That said, Jupiter is also ruler of the 4th house which stands for the opposition parties, who therefore may also benefit, or give a much better showing in terms of results than anyone predicted. It’s difficult to say which will come to fruition, although at present I would favour the government, especially as Neptune is found in the opposition’s house (4th), which implies a confusion of ideas and ideals.
Venus in the pit – a positive effect?
The MC or midheaven is also a strong indicator of the government’s standing. In this chart it is in Libra, whose ruler is Venus, which, very interestingly, is making a tight triple conjunction with the daunting Saturn and Pluto ‘diabolical double act’ in Capricorn in the 2nd house.
Venus is termed the lesser benefic and actually sits nicely between baleful Saturn and penetrating Pluto, perhaps acting as a kind emollient, softening influence, maybe even allowing for more positivechange politically (Capricorn) and economically (2nd house), as a result of this election.
What is more, returning to the full Moon, or the sun and Moon opposition, which I talked about in the previous post, this Venus, along with Saturn and Pluto, form an interesting semi sextile (30 degrees) aspect to the sun and is also inconjunct or quincunx aspect (150 degrees) to the Moon.
To my mind this shows Venus (in conjunction with Saturn and Pluto) having the potential to positively offload the great tension of the situation in the election, the full Moon, and plough it into beneficial news and results politically and economically, along with Pluto’s potential to ‘drain the swamp’ and Saturn’s ability to begin to build again. We shall see, it’s tempting and all too easy to read too much into this, but fascinating nevertheless.
copyright Leofwine Tanner 2019
*If you would like your own astrological report creating please contact on email@example.com
Whatever did Britons (and others) do for news stories before Brexit?
When this long running political and parliamentary shenanigans is finally sorted (if) – will we actually, in some strange way – miss it?
Now that ‘the can has been kicked down the road’ once more, as they say, there is still no end in sight, not even with a ‘flextension’, where the United Kingdom could leave at any time before January 31 2020. But don’t hold your breath, expect the unexpected might be a good statement to keep in mind.
The whole issue of Brexit reminded me of the people of Great Britain’s long running in/out relationship with the continent of Europe, not merely historically, politically and economically, but geographically.
When the ice sheets melted at the end of the last ice age, roughly 10 to 11000 years ago, what is now the island of Great Britain was, for a time, connected to the continent by an ever diminishing land bridge, which eventually disappeared.
It would appear this separation was wholly and permanently defining for the people of Great Britain, wherever they came from, and remains so right up until the present day. Britain is part of Europe, yet it is clearly a very distinct part of it, symbolised by its island status and the fractured relationship it has had, and still has, with Europe’s varying political institutions.
In the next piece I will look at other examples of ‘Brexit’ from the past.