>>Why should were in It's time we were going be subjunctive when it looks exactly like the past tense? In Latin it's simple, there are different tenses and moods and they have, by and large, different forms. But that's Latin. English is a different language, with its own rules. <<

English is a renegade, hybrid language, a relatively late product of Norman French and tribal Anglo-Saxon languages. Hence we have both "beef" and "cow"; both "pork" and "pig." Latin grammar rules were imposed on it in the 19th century. Just because the "were" in the subjunctive is spelled the same way as the "were" in the plural simple past doesn't mean the two serve the same grammatical function. Again, we are confusing superficial construction with deep meaning. This is not really the place to go into sentence diagramming, but that would be a good lead for you to follow, Bingley ... German also had its dose of Latin grammar imposed on it, and is a language that follows the rules well. Perhaps our researchers-without-peer, jmh and tsuwm, can find you a good grammar site that explains this.