I've never quite understood why an encrypted spreadsheet or document is frowned upon, while a custom password manager (like KeePass) is OK.

However, the UK government dragging things out too long won't make sense politically inside the UK. The government will not want to give the impression that it is backsliding on it's commitment to leave the EU.

To answer your final question, LibreOffice is good. I've been using it for years. Admittedly before the fork I was using OpenOffice (before the fork), but switched to LibreOffice once it seemed it was actually going to be staying around.

That said, there are some compatibility issues with Microsoft Office, especially around PowerPoint, although these issues seem to be being addressed with each release. However, for personal use, I find it more than adequate.

Perhaps give it a try - it's free (gratis) as well as free (libre)!

The Commission can propose legislation, but the EU Parliament has to pass it. If the EU Parliament doesn't, then it goes nowhere.

Unfortunately 'laicism' seems somewhat partial in it's application. It seems that nuns, in full habit, are not being banned from the beach or forced to undress.

People share photos of nuns on the beach in response to burkini ban in France

But then, this isn't really about secularism or laicism, or even about the banning of uniforms (and a nun's habit is much more of a uniform than a burkini). Incidentally, the burkini was created by a Lebanese-born Australian, in Australia. In her own words...

I created the burkini to give women freedom, not to take it away

Plus the Foreign Office's main remit (with relations outside the EU) is Trade. This has now been hived off to a new department of International Trade under Liam Fox.

Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary isn't the only Cabinet Minister she's appointed which will have international implications, she has also created two new cabinet posts;

Secretary of State for Exiting the EU - David Davis
Secretary of State for International Trade - Liam Fox

The first is getting us out of the EU, the second is for getting new trade agreements for when we are out of the EU.

All these three are Brexiters, and will be responsible for the aftermath. Very clever - as May was a Remainer, she has effectively delegated responsibility for the success or failure of exiting the EU on to those who campaigned to get us into this situation in the first place!

Parliamentary democracy.

We elect parliamentarians, who's job it is to took at the issues and make decisions. They've managed for every other major issue we've faced so far, even taking us into war. For an interesting take on this by Professor Richard Dawkins, see Richard Dawkins: Ignoramuses should have no say on our EU membership—and that includes me

But, as you say, we have voted to leave the EU. But what exactly does that mean? My preferred option would be the Norwegian model, where we continue to be a member of the Single Market, contribute to the EU Budget, and maintain the principle of free movement. In other words, exactly the same as now, but without the influence. (Apparently the reason Norway takes this approach is to be exempt from the Common Fisheries Policy. We could do similarly once out - great for our fishermen). In a way, I like this approach. We can be 'out', yet as far as the rest of the EU is concerned, due to lack of influence, we won't be able to make to make things difficult for the rest of them.

However, I don't know what will be negotiated or agreed, as we weren't asked in the referendum. No dount as soon as I am told, I will 'deal with it'.

I think this is something I would want to revisit when "To" in your list is replaced by 'Have". At this precise moment in time, I sense that #3, specifically with regards the EU, isn't going to be possible without compromising on #4 and #5. (I must admit I thought we already had #1 and #2!)

The petition in question was about confirming the electorate's wishes if the vote was close. Rather like one of those "are you really sure" questions you get before doing something potentially dangerous (like reformatting a hard disk).

In this case, I think there are good grounds for the government to confirm the electorate's wishes, given the closeness of the vote and the enormity of the decision.

But if I were you, I wouldn't worry, it's not going to happen.

As to "people you never voted for or have heard of in a foreign country (Belgium in this case)", I assume among these you include our MEPs? Actually, yes, I did vote in the election for these. Or the Council of Ministers, again as these are made up of ministers from each member state, again I did vote in the UK election where the current government was elected. OK the Commission is appointed, albeit with each nation's commissioner by their (elected), government, it is, I suppose, no worse than our house of Lords. Better perhaps, as the EU Parliament can vote to dismiss the commission. And I had heard of our commissioner - Lord Hill, now to be replaced by Sir Julian King.

(And I have no problems with reforming the EU so the Commission is directly elected, but strangely this is not one reform Cameron was inclined to ask for. No matter now, as soon I will have no say in the future of the EU as my country will not be part of it).

The referendum was supposedly advisory, not binding.

This is the figure after they got rid of the dubious signatories.

The petition was always going to be rejected, and I say that as someone who signed it. However, it will become part of the historical narrative for this referendum and the aftermath.

It will also act as a signpost for any other country who holds a similar referendum in the future; really for a referendum of such a constitutional importance, a higher threshold than a simple majority should be required for any vote-to-change to be valid.

In theory correct, in practice that's not how it works. To give a current example, I probably won't be voting Labour at the next election, not because I don't want my local Labour MP re-elected (as actually I quite like her), but because I don't want Corbyn as PM.

So who the leader of a party is does affect how you vote in elections, even if you're not actually directly voting for that leader as PM.

Not the young, who apparently quite like the ability to move, study, live and work freely throughout the EU.