I can understand in light of one of our member's early comments on this that you might suspect our announcement doesn't pass "the smell test".
However, the said member was not involved in the UA meetings nor had any presence at our former embassy there. So, essentially, he was reacting to some of the bad PR this generated.
I am the one who negotiated this deal on DAAN's behalf, and so bear - and accept - responsibility for it. I should have reviewed the complete log of the meeting and pursued the issues we have raised as a basis for our withdrawal immediately with the pact members. This may have served to have perserved the pact. So I have learned a good lesson here regarding attentiveness to diplomatic developments in this game. So much in this game moves slowly; I was unprepared for how quickly this would happen!
That said, you should know that, in response to the alert from the member whose concerns you recall hearing, we did call an emergency cabinet meeting and met a day earlier than we normally do. While we could have acted even faster, we thought it best to get all the facts, review the record, and proceed with unanimity.
On a lighter side, I do agree that the doubters should have set up a pool on who would leave the UA first. At least the DAAN would have gotten a "win" out of this that way. B)
Thanks for taking an interest in this. We do appreciate the input.
Cheers!
Lord Kelvin of New Rutherford
Vice Chancellor
Democractic Armed Alliance of Nations (The DAAN)