Re: The British Bases.
Posted:
Wed May 20, 2009 6:08 pmby EPSILON
Muzzy70 wrote:Ok let's suggest that the future security arrangements of a settlement are on the following basis. Turkish and Greek troops remain on the island as per the 1959 London - Zurich Accords on a 650/950 ratio. Greek troops remain in the southern 'consituent' state and Turkish troops in the north. All troops, possibly, are to be withdrawn following Turkey's accession to the EU. Turkey acts as a guarantor state for the north and Greece for the south. There is thus no reason as to why Britain should remain a guarantor state in the event of a settlement. The ties of history (and I know this will annoy some people) and ethnicity of both Cypriot communities dictate that they have far more of a right to a Turkish and Greek security presence on the island than Britain ever does. The presence of 650 Turkish troops is a security measure, however symbolic, to allay the potential fears of the Turkish Cypriot community.
The British presence in Cyprus has nothing at all to do with internal security but strategy and as such the validity of the bases continuing to exist in a newly established Cypriot state ceases to exist, period. Both leaders should make it quite clear to the UK government that the bases should go in the event of a settlement. Does anybody know if this is being discussed by the technical committees ? Could someone also remind me what the provisions were for the future of the bases in the Annan Plan ?
A potential sticking point of a possible British withdrawal, for the Turkish Cypriot side, would be that the territory of the bases would be a part of the Greek Cypriot constituent state, thus providing such a state with more territory. This could be taken into account, understandably, by the Turkish Cypriots during negotiations about the eventual size of the northern constituent state. Could be problematic but again I can see a compromise formula here.
The solution is only one-No Greek -No Turkey guarantee- ONLY NATO.British bases became NATO bases where Greeks/Turks soldiers will be controlled by a third party-Nato.
Posted:
Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:15 amby vaughanwilliams
The British Bases form no part of RoC as they were in existence before independance and their continuing existence was part of the independance conditions.
To say that they will be "given back" implies they were "taken away" - not the case at all.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:36 amby YFred
vaughanwilliams wrote:The British Bases form no part of RoC as they were in existence before independance and their continuing existence was part of the independance conditions.
To say that they will be "given back" implies they were "taken away" - not the case at all.
Vaughan, Wilson wanted to pull out of Cyprus and the American Government stopped him. There is no need for the bases except for using them to attack the oil fields, and that is not no longer required as Israel will do it for the west for free.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:41 amby vaughanwilliams
Britain may well pull-out at some time in the future but this will not be giving the bases back, but giving them away.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 amby kafenes
vaughanwilliams wrote:Britain may well pull-out at some time in the future but this will not be giving the bases back, but giving them away.
Yeah! The same way the Orams have to "give away" their property.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:38 amby vaughanwilliams
I fail to see the connection....
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:05 pmby YFred
vaughanwilliams wrote:Britain may well pull-out at some time in the future but this will not be giving the bases back, but giving them away.
Come now, we are splitting hairs. Ideally you/we should be giving them back to whom you/we got it from, but thats another story.
Posted:
Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:02 pmby denizaksulu
YFred wrote:vaughanwilliams wrote:Britain may well pull-out at some time in the future but this will not be giving the bases back, but giving them away.
Come now, we are splitting hairs. Ideally you/we should be giving them back to whom you/we got it from, but thats another story.
I am hoping you do not mean Turkey!!!
Posted:
Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:22 amby vaughanwilliams
Quote from Cyprus Mail
"The truth is that Britain has no need to use any devious plans to secure the continuing presence of the bases on Cyprus soil, because it has already secured this right through Cyprus’ EU accession protocol of 2003. The protocol clearly states that the rights and obligations of the parties to the Treaty of Establishment of 1960 would not be affected by Cyprus’ accession to the EU.
It was signed by the President of the Republic and unanimously approved by the House of Representatives, with the votes of DIKO and EDEK, as well as by the legislatures of all EU member-states at the time.
Was Omirou, a deputy at the time, not aware that he had voted in favour of the indefinite presence of the bases in Cyprus? Was neither DIKO nor Phileleftheros aware of the protocol? Was it ever likely that Britain would have agreed to Cyprus’ accession to the EU, without safeguarding its right to maintain the sovereign base territory indefinitely? The Treaty cannot even be challenged, as it has been incorporated in the accession protocol"
So it would appear that whether you ever get the SBAs, in part or in full, is up to the UK to decide not the RoC to demand.
