Doomsday in the eu and most markets :(

Mr. Gass, I agree with you and really enjoy reading all of your critical responses to everyone's posts. I would like to nominate you to be our moderator. You have been a forum member longer it appears than almost everyone on the forum. I am sorta new to the forum but have been following it since I moved to here and read most of your 249 posts, although I only found 4 new threads you started and the rest criticisms you made of other guys's posts but I probably don't know how to navigate yet. I also think your English is better than most germans posting on the forum so again I think you will be a great moderator. I hope you agree and contact the Dane to take this over and bring reality to us members.

 

I feel for you Brits, now you know how most Americans feel about the U.N. - a money pit.

 

now you get really childish, PatO... or should I say Mod? I am not that smart, but this is a giveaway...

​

.. and thanks to offer to take over your job, too much political sh*t going on here since a while and not that much information, not that I deliver much content, but no content is still better than the country-bashing political nonsense or wrong info from the friends of friends and "miss know it all"...

 

I am quite surprised that I can find some stuff on Wikipedia.

"The City of London
Further information: City of London

The one exception to the general trends in the development of local government in England has been (and remains) the City of London. This refers only to the actual City of London (as distinct from the Greater London area, and the nearby City of Westminster). In the UK, City status is granted by royal charter; whilst in common parlance 'city' (lower case) is used to mean a large urban area, 'City' refers specifically to a specific legal entity. Thus, the what might be considered the 'city of London' contains both the 'City of London' and 'City of Westminster'. The City of London, covering a relatively small area, (often called 'The Square Mile' or just 'The City') is the main financial district of London, and only houses c.7,200 permanent residents.

For a variety of reasons, including a singular relationship with the Crown, the City of London has remained an archaic oddity within the English system of local government. As discussed above, the City of London was administered separately from the reign of Alfred the Great onwards, and was very quickly granted self-governance after the Norman conquest. Until 1835, the City of London was a fairly normal (municipal) borough, run by the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London, which had also received county corporate status (and thus was technically 'The County and City of London'). However, unlike most other boroughs, London was not reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835; and unlike the other unreformed boroughs of the time, never has been.

In the major local government reforms of 1888 the City of London, unlike other municipal boroughs and counties corporate, was not made into either a county borough or a district within an administrative county. Nor indeed was it placed within a statutory county at that time, remaining separate from the County of London (though within it for geographical purposes). Nor was the status of the City of London as a county corporate abolished in 1974, unlike the (by then ceremonial) status of the other counties corporate, nor was the City of London included in any of the London boroughs created in 1965; although at that time it did become included within the Greater London county, as a de facto 33rd borough in the second tier of local government. The City of London has continued in name and administration to be a municipal borough and county corporate since 1888, whilst acting as a de facto county borough until 1965, and since 1965 as a de facto metropolitan borough.

When Greater London Council was abolished in 1986, the City of London reverted to being a unitary authority (like the London boroughs). Under the terms of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, it is now classed as a ceremonial county by itself, separate from the Greater London ceremonial county (in to which the 32 London Boroughs are grouped). However, the City of London does now form part of the new Greater London region (which, confusingly is essentially the modern Greater London ceremonial county, plus the City of London; i.e., the post-1965 Greater London metropolitan county), and as such falls under the strategic management of the Greater London Authority.

The current system retains non-democratic elements to the election of the local government. The primary justification for this is that the services provided by the City of London are used by approximately 450,000 workers who dwell outside the City, and only by 7200 residents (a ratio not found elsewhere in the UK). In reflection of this, businesses based in the City can vote in the local elections, a practice abolished elsewhere in England in 1969. The archaic system of the City of London is likely to be kept under review over the next few years.[29]

The City of London has a different type of ward than used presently elsewhere in the country, another remnant of ancient local government found in the "square mile" of the City. The wards are permanent entities that constitute the City and are more than just electoral districts."
Conflict with the City

From the beginning of the commission's sittings the City were reluctant to have any dealings with the body. The main objection was that the terms of reference suggested a fait accompli, with the commission being given the duty of devising a method of amalgamating City and county, not whether this should go ahead. A special committee of the common council was established and in November 1893 advised the corporation to cease giving evidence, as the proposed merger was:

...a thing that should not be done and that the creation of a monster municipality is a thing to be utterly avoided, and the annihilation of the City equally to be avoided.[14]

The Attorney General, Sir Charles Russell attacked the City's attitude. The only reasons he could see for resisting the merger were a misplaced pride in the office of Lord Mayor and a "too sacred regard" for the City funds.[15] Following the receipt of a letter from the President of the Local Government Board the City agreed to resume tendering evidence in December on the understanding that the terms of reference could be modified.[16]

However, in February 1894, the Corporation suddenly announced that they were withdrawing from furnishing evidence to the commission. The City's representative on the commission, H Homewood Crawford, resigned with immediate effect. The common council wrote an open letter to The Times explaining their actions: firstly the assurances given by the President of the Local Government Board regarding the terms of reference of the commission had not been honoured; and secondly the commission was refusing to hear their evidence regarding the position, powers and duties of the vestries and other local authorities outside the City.[17][18]

I will check some other stuff as well...

 

I agree with you. I quit too! Moderator position open, go for it.