We are now well into January. As I gaze at the candle on my table, the flame is steady, almost still. The flickering of the flame is barely noticeable. But, as the New Year begins to roll forward, our world is far from steady and the future appears to be barely visible in the gloom of uncertainty and surmise, the miasma created by events and the media. It seems as if, as in the Victorian poet Matthew Arnold’s ‘Dover Beach’:

‘we are here as on a darkling plain

Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

Where ignorant armies clash by night.‘

So it seems to us in the UK, on the verge of leaving our European community, which inevitably makes our common future uncertain, while over the last weeks, a cacophony of conflicting voices have been raised in the House of Commons, resulting in virtual anarchy. As might be expected, I have been entranced by the drama of it all, preventing me from going back to finishing my novel ‘Driftwood’, (perhaps an appropriate title for our movement towards March 29). Events in the House of Commons this week have been worthy of a Shakespearean history drama, with Mrs May almost deposed from her throne, except that there has been little if any poetic rhetoric in the house over the last few days. Civilised and dignified debate has been thrown out of the window into the River Thames. The debate has at times been reduced to barracking both within the chamber and on the streets outside the venerable building.

The debacle has been magnified by being televised and brought into our own homes and, of course, politicians of all persuasions have been keen to push forward their sound bites in the obligatory on the spot interviews with political commentators from the media. Considered opinion in our ‘rapid response’ age of social media appears to be on the decline. The referendum campaign itself, on both sides, was fought with soundbites, with passion rather than reasoned thought.              

In my last blog, a few weeks ago, I quoted Marcus:  

‘For we have been born for co-operation, as have hands, feet, eyelids and rows of upper and lower teeth. Therefore to thwart one another is unnatural and we do thwart one another when we show resentment and dislike.’      

His words from centuries ago are an apt analysis of last weeks’ events. The house has been intent upon thwarting Mrs May and her exit plan, as if any exit plan would be acceptable in its entirety. She for her part has emerged as being high-handed in her approach to the deal. She has shown little co-operation with members of her own party let alone other parts of the House. Therefore, her plan has been shot down, not only because some hardline Brexiteers had no intention of approving it anyway (as was evident from their comments on the deal before they had even seen it) but also because, the House, quite rightly, had begun to see that, on this issue, the government were intent upon riding roughshod over it.    

The sorry spectacle is leading to even more unease in people’s minds.  From the start, we are not used to making major decisions affecting our country’s future by voting in a referendum, as is Switzerland, which uses referenda as an integral part of its democratic process.  How the result is worked out in our own parliamentary system has therefore created problems. It has lead us into uncharted waters.

As it is, Brexit, a fragmentary act in itself, has caused considerable division in the country. It is like a stone thrown into a window, shattering it. Everywhere we can see nothing but cracks and fragments. This divisiveness has been not only echoed but trumpeted in the conflict between our elected leaders. An ever greater lack of trust of politicians is prevalent among the general public as, in the midst of the current ongoing farrago, politicians are seen to be pursuing their own or their party’s ambitions.

Furthermore, since the referendum in 2016, it has become gradually apparent that the process of leaving is a highly intricate process, not necessarily because the EU negotiators have made it so, but because our forty year relationship with the EU has been intricate, close, deep and mutually beneficial.  It has been an interdependent relationship. It is like trying to unpick the Bayeux tapestry. Needless to say, this intricacy in all its myriad detail has led to endless further debate and rancour.

At least now, at the last hour, Mrs May has perforce decided to discuss the exit deal with other parties as well as her own, which, of course, should have happened all along.  A cross party commission to deal with Brexit should have been set up from the start. Sadly the leader of the opposition is not taking part in these discussions.  It is to be hoped that Mrs May does listen to these other voices, however, and is prepared to adapt her plan.

This process of cross-party consultation is not only vital in arriving at an acceptable exit deal but even more so in deciding up and establishing the nature of our future relationship with the EU.

The time for ‘confused alarms of struggle and flight’ is over.

Now it is time to listen.  To eachother.

Ave atque Vale until the next blog.

If you are enjoying my blog, and have not already done so, please sign up below to receive notification of each new blog by e mail.

And please do pass on the blog address to others who may be interested.

I would also value any feedback on nzolad53@gmail.com or my Facebook page or Twitter.

Many thanks

Neilus Aurelius