Join the new world

The Alliance Question.

This is not about SIRIUS.

The UKPP conference has already determined its discontent with the manner in which we became part of that alliance and wishes that a more democratic method be adopted in future decisions. Therefore we back the idea of a referendum on participation within SIRIUS to retroactivly establish this point so that we are able (to more likely) carry on happily with our current allies.

What we agreed to discuss in an upcoming ballot, for which this article has been produced, is the question itself of "Mega-Alliance or Independent policy"



Mega-Alliance
The eUK has often found itself part of a mega-alliance and due to the alleged organisational abilities, precision in diplomatic language (English) and being recognised as a fair nation unlikely to take a national bias in alliance decisions (as we do not have the strength to get to the point where bias would come inot play).

The Pro's of this behaviour are long established;

1) Some eUKers get to enjoy a higher aspect of the meta-game.
2) eUK has back-up if invaded.
3) eUKers have constant battles everyday in which to rank up and level up.
4) We obtain a sense of global relevance by being part of an organisation that makes changes on the map and chaos and activity amongst other nations.


The Con's;
1) Alliance work hives of our small pool of active, intelligent players that could be working within the eUK for its own longterm betterment.
2) eUK becomes a target for the opposing mega-Alliance.
3) Fighting the same battle in the Balkans or its periphery everyday isn't excting and we have no feel for the battle itself it just becomes a place were we can do some fights.
4) eUK is a small cog in an alliance and there has been no feedback or promotion of recent alliances and we get the feeling we are 'meat' and drone fighters.


So, What is the alternative to the constant switching between alliances and the making and breaking of friendships?



Independent policy
To first examine the feasability of 'independence' we need to assess our geographical position and the threat of not being able to count on a huge MPP stack.

There is no neighbouring nation around us that cannot be constantly defeated in a RW and/or find eUK invasion a huge waste of resources, time and a diversion from tasks they should otherwise be focused on such as defense of economic conquests, Helping allies and not distracting friends by engaging in a longterm pissant war.

So now that we sit alone, we've saved £110K a month from our MPP stack and our ability to engage in fun or save ourself from a wipe through an airstrike is now within the realms of possibility as the total cost to do so is now 130K instead of the mega-alliance cost of 450K.

This is not to say we are reduced to sitting around waiting for Ireland to do maths or Canada thinking they can into oil. We can now treat each MPP and country on its respective merits and/our national intrests or goals.

We would for example keep fighting for Poland as we not only have a number of factories based over there who rely on the 100% bonus but they also add an element of stability to Western Europe through their sheer presence. In addition we must ackowledge our the fact that we owe them for past help.

We could offer a safe, uncontested airstrike to nations such as Australia to ensure they can have a congress and by juducious timing we could launch our own to block or remove aggressive, expansionist nations from snesitive areas.

MU's could fight in and for Serbia, America and Macedonia as they desire without being traitorfags.

We could take a breather from the everyday battles in the same places, harbour our resources and make a more condensed impact on wars we choose to enter.

Pro's
1) We save money that can be directed into NHS and Training grounds
2) We have the ability to airstrike
3) We don't have to chop and change our friendships, calling former allies PTOers and dividing ourselves based on past allegiances.
4) It's something new to think about and play with. A break from the normal monotony.

Con's
1) It's risky and we might attract an invasion from a hostile neighbour who wishes to try their luck or has a CP who seeks conquest for their nation over economic and military sense.
2) Might not be a huge selection of direct battles to choose from.



There would be risks and mistakes as we voyaged down this new untried path but the opportunities to open ourselves to a whole new way of playing the game cannot be downplayed.



Article open to all comments and opinions prior to party ballot.