The world is our oyster.

There are strong moves, and getting stronger for there to be a rethink on the Referendum vote to come out of Europe. The political elite as well as the financial elite were stunned by the results of the vote and have been working overtime to consider ways to overturn the decision to leave.

Part of the problem has been, having won the vote the main "leave" contestants were immediately drawn into government and given the job of negotiating our way out of the network of labyrinth and torturous agreements on trade and the reciprocal laws which govern us. 

Grasping the nettle of unlocking the grip Europe has on us is the task given to Liam Fox and David Davis both ardent "leave" campaigners but behind the scenes is the rumbling of discontent from the "stay" group in parliament and a whole host of people in the business world.

1. The first argument to raise its head is that Parliament needs to 'ratify' the vote because it raises constitutional issues that only Parliament can resolve.

2. The second issue is that the people were fed only sound bites of what the ramifications would be financially if we came out.

The constitutional argument is complex given the place parliament takes in our democracy, especially not having a Constitution or a set of constitutional touch stones to guide us. We rely on Parliament on all matters, even our case law on which we build up our law defining the legal decisions in our courts to be binding and each decision a stone in the wall of our legal precedent. Most countries draft their laws from the top down with legal opinion from the senior judges forming the law which then has to be instructed through the courts. It is argued that our system is more "organic" in that precedence is given to what actually happens in society rather than a concept of what 'should happen', handed down from a class of people who are remote from the society they are supposed to serve.

The second complaint and crucial in the minds of those who wish to stay in is that not enough emphasis was placed on the actual dangers and the actual effects which would arise if we left the European Union, particularly the effect on finance and commerce.

George Osborn (where did he go) was clear in his overall warning that there would be dire consequences but he didn't provide the detail. He like so many of his political ilk had lost the trust of the people, his utterances were taken with the proverbial pinch of salt. 

One man who could have spelt it out and wasn't allowed to was Mark Carney the Governor of the Bank of England. Constitutionally he wasn't t allowed to take sides. 

In fact Jacob Rees-Mogg the conservative parliamentarian and member of the "leave" campaign has been pursuing Mark Carney in the Finance Committee for what he feels were comments made during the run up to the referendum which placed the Governor, alongside the Chancellor George Osborn, suggesting doom and gloom for the economy if we came out.

One of the problems of a democratic mandate is that democracy is not a science but an aspiration and being such, the words used to describe an end are arbitrary. They do not have to conform to any specific definition certainly not a legal definition and the public have grown sceptical of their political masters when it comes to speaking "truth".

The "Governor of the Bank of England" who has the specific responsibility to speak the truth as far as the evidence before him, can not, because of "protocol". 

Who said our world isn't mad.

I have become a firm favourite of Yanis Varoufakis the ex Greek Minister of Finance. His two books "The Global Minotaur" and his second "And the Weak suffer what they must" are both excellent appraisals of the financial machine and the politics behind it. 

The first book covers the American re-financialisation of American spheres of interest  and the creation of a dollar zone in Japan (covering Asia), and Europe to recycle the dollar imbalances as America pumped money and resources into her prodigies Germany and Japan. Both countries under her control with a sitting occupational army and both  destined to be the nucleus of the rebirth of each area after the war.

The second book covers Europe and the intrigue that went into and still makes up Project Europe.  Varoufakis saw at first hand the relentless power of the Bundesbank in his negotiations as Greek Finance Minister trying to find a way of relieving the oppressive debt incurred by his nation, trapped in the clutches of the Eurozone.

Both books informed and influenced me in my decision to forgo the warmth of the European embrace (specifically the German embrace) and the tricks of the deviously powerful bureaucratic Commission, Jean Claude Junker and his pal's. 

A cabal of influence which is undemocratic and only serves its own ends.

Given that we survived in the past as an independent nation, effectively trading with the other nations of the world before the EU was conceived, there seems no reason we can't do it again. We need to get up off or collective arse and stop reflecting on what might have been and consider our strengths as a nation which are many. If we can drag ourselves into the 21st century and leave the traditional humbug behind, including our crippling obsession with the preservation of class and elitism "the world is our oyster".