Join the new world

everyone could c this as sum sort of an aliance

No, we're simply closing the war because it really has no effect at this tage, and we want to look at getting into those war games too.

I don't see this as an alliance I see it as securing of neutrality.

Nah it protects us from invasion.

pip and niall-h are spot on
try again darragh

@darragh. if we have a peace treaty with uk tho doesnt that mean we are eliminating the UK as a possible wargame partner until the treaty is expired?

yes it does conor
it also means that we uphold the NAP
and therefore survive

Erm ... binksy, read the foreign affairs section of the forum. We will be taking part in the PEACE wargames, as well as closing a pointless war, as I said.

Peace with Britian is a good things
-It protects us from invasion from routes throught Britian
-Any attacking armies must get worn down on Britian defenses allowing for an easy defence of Ireland
-An alliance with Britian helps secure our nuetrality
-It allows us to engage in various wars/ war games that Britian has with various countries

This isn't an alliance senatour it just closes the war games with Britian so PEACe don't have an opertunity to attack us and therefore keep the terms of the NAP.

Look we signing an peace treaty with eUK so that they promise they wont attack us and the PEACE wars games are not just between eHungary and eUK other countrys are hosting the war games.

And.. all we need is to sign an MPP with an hosting country I know this will cost 120 Gold but I dont see it has an affect to the Budget because war games will help the weapon Companys.

Binksy and I approached the UK 2 days ago to close the TW with ireland to facilitate the NAP. Its nothing to worry about, all procedure.

I voted yes. I didn't like having an open war with them.

with an alliance with the UK, hungary could attack and then have the UK clean up like they did with france...

Vesty, we are not signing an alliance with the UK, This is a non-agression pact, that means they cannot attack us. And it is secured by legally binding contract.

O.k. The fact that this debate is only taking place on the day of the vote isn't good, it allows no time for a proper discussion of the issues.
I read what was everyone else has said and then went to the forums and nothing, no warning no discussion, no information about the terms of the treaty.
In the end, I voted for the treaty. I think that the arguments for do out way the arguments against. But I have to say that if this is the way that issues are discussed then we need to have a serious look at the way we run congress.
And Conor I think that this does need discussion.
"Personally i have no problem with peace but i am cautious as this could affect our national neutrality."
I have a worry about how this will affect us and needs to be discussed.

Tarazis sati,
This was proposed by the UK President Hassan Peseran.
Binksy and I asked the UK to close the wargames that are currently open to facilitate a Non agression pact. Time is of the essence in the current delicate situation and there was simply no need to have the war open anymore as we never used it anyway.

Brian that's cool. But that would have been good as an explanation and why was this proposal only brought to Congresses attention through Conor's paper?

Should there have been an announcement by the Minister from the Ministry, or it should have been an announcement by the President. This is a Peace treaty, it's important.

Tarazin I understand what you are saying but it has been well documented by me, both in my newspaper and on the forums that this was on the cards. It is required to sign a NAP anyway.

TS, I hear you.
There is a lot of misunderstanding going on in this thread.

Om a military operational basis, when I called the Code 4, I asked our current administration to arrange the closure of open games as soon as PEACE attacked the US, and the VERY moment I saw the disclaimers in the Hungary / Scotland games, on the day they actually began.

I initiated this move. Me alone. No-one else. Here, or abroad.

The suit work began later.

(Later than I would have liked, mainly due to a lack of focus from those M.I.A. Now, I'm aware this statement may start a bun-fight and some impressive chest-beating, but I can assure you, these are the facts.)

For me, this is not primarily about negotiations of any sort, it is about locking doors that were opened in good faith, but the game partner circumstances changed.

I would be happy to talk to the Dail in greater depth about this, if requested by congress.

I followed normal military defense protocols.
I would passionately request the support of congress.
Again.