"again not fusing" incorrect, the fusing happened immediately after referendum, by declaration that you already quoted (and that been symmetrical with none of the predecessors being discarded, they simply formed one entity) This declaration been unanimously by whole coucil and clearly stated that both councils are one, ad infinitum. AFTER TWO STEPPED DOWN since otherwise you can't merge two bodies which are not identical! So we couldn't do it *in* refrendum since the vote and making both councils identical was not done at that point. However it GOT DONE. And that's what I promised to electorate. PERIOD

again, what's your point? what's the difference anyway? Sorry dude, you start to bore me (oops, that statement is incorrect, scrap "start to"). There's ONE council and it obeys at least two sets of *identical* rules. Call it whatever you like, it stays The Council. And it has three "jobs". When you change the rules for one of the three jobs in an incompatible conflicting way, then one physical entity will serve two logically unrelated duties, and the "job" that changed the rules has basically created its own local shwouncyl with this, regardless of the other two rulesets staying coherent and unchanged, and the same body would have to obey two different sets of rulesets.
A hires you to walk to the attic at 12:00:00 and check visibility distance by looking out the window. B does exactly same. Even C hires you to do exactly that. When you walk to the attic at 12:00:00 and look, are you A's employee, B's or C's? Now B says you have to do same at 15:00:00 again. Still no problem. But when C changes rules and says at 12:00:00 you have to check water height of the brook in front of your house, you can't do all three jobs anymore.

Oh, and I can smell your hate oozing out of every of your 837 body orifices, green and slimy. the disrespect you utter with every single "a" you type is so obvious I don't need to tell anybody about... (just kidding. We call this "persiflage")

btw: a "this referendum was meant to be about something different, but somehow it turned into something completely wong" doesn't mean the result of the referendum is any invalid, after all the electorate elected about the exact text of the referendum, not about what somebody meant it should have been. sorry for MT that I disagreed on running a referendum that had a "question" text which had not been agreed upon unanimously. I leave it up to you to learn why. Hint: got to do with not changing rules in a way that puts damage to those who relied on the old rules. We had a lawyer voicing up here, he might help you out.