Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Bananiot** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:55 am

How many of you still "believe" that the British Bases have an EEZ and that the Annan Plan was giving our wealth paper-wrapped to the Brits? In today's "POLITIS" there are two pages on the subject. One well known pro Annan plan supporter (Makarios Droushiotis) together with one well know anti Annan supporter ( Loukis Loukaides) state quite clearly their stance on the issue and they agree on it too.

by **B25** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:34 pm

Good lord, you give credence to Makarios Droushotis? He is walking around with a Turkish villo up his arse and quite possibly on the Turkish payroll. It's a good job for him EOKA is not around today :wink:

seriously bananiot, you can do better than that, than to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
It has been proven to you already about britains intention about the SBA EEZ, what more do you need, blood?

by **PC Bubble** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:51 pm

EOKA is still around today.

They all post on here !

by **Bananiot** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:52 pm

But, I also talked about Loukis Loukaides, who was the flagship of the anti Annan contingent. What do you have to say about him? Is he more credible, does he have a valid opinion on this matter?

by **kimon07** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:53 pm

Bananiot wrote:How many of you still "believe" that the British Bases have an EEZ and that the Annan Plan was giving our wealth paper-wrapped to the Brits? In today's "POLITIS" there are two pages on the subject. One well known pro Annan plan supporter (Makarios Droushiotis)......................

I don't need any news paper man (and especially THAT one to explain legal terms for me. Thank you :lol:

by **Nikitas** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:20 pm

We are comparing unlike skillsets here. Loucaidis is a respected jurists who participated in international tribunals, Droushiotis is a media man.

When reading the Annan plan, not all of it I confess, back in 2004, I recall the provisions for territorial waters and continental shelf of the SBAs. The EEZ was not a fashionable concept back then. Recent statements by the British Foreign Office tend to show that the British regard the SBAs as having EEZ but they voluntarily choose not to pursue the matter.

I also recall that there was no express provision made [in Annan] about the fate of SBA territory in the event of a British withdrawal. They would revert to which Constituent State and how? This is where the definitions that bother me personally, or their absence, start to count.Is the extent of the territory of each CS calculated on the basis of the territory of the RoC or of Cyprus as a geographical entity?

This is not semantics, this is stuff that will prevent a future conflict, which I believe Turkey is counting on and is prepared for. A definition based on the island territory, not the RoC, and defined as the maximum which will be allocated to the TC Statelet prevents future problems. And naturally the agreement must state from the outset that SBA will revert to the GC statelet and clear that ambiguity once and for all. Arguably such a clause might ease the impact of any territorial settlement that looks unbalanced at the moment.

We let these things open and we are risking a new and more destructive conflict. The issue of territory, I believe, is the fundamental one, the rest, (in the context of a BBF), are secondary matters.

To put the above in context, it is not unimaginable to see Turkey, via the TCs, demanding a slice of the Akrotiri base in case of its evacuation by the British. Those that think this is unrealistic had better refer to Turkish claims on the island of Gavdos three miles off southern Crete and the assertion that Greece cannot search for oil without prior Turkish agreement even in the Ionian sea that faces Italy! See official statement by Tansu Ciller. The statements were so far out that Nicholas Burns, US envoy to NATO had to make a public statement calling them "nonsense". Turkey is not a normal state operating within the bounds of international customs and common sense. They push the envelope as far as circumstances allow.

by **kimon07** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:39 pm

Nikitas wrote:We are comparing unlike skillsets here. Loucaidis is a respected jurists who participated in international tribunals, Droushiotis is a media man.

When reading the Annan plan, not all of it I confess, back in 2004, I recall the provisions for territorial waters and continental shelf of the SBAs. The EEZ was not a fashionable concept back then. Recent statements by the British Foreign Office tend to show that the British regard the SBAs as having EEZ but they voluntarily choose not to pursue the matter.

I also recall that there was no express provision made [in Annan] about the fate of SBA territory in the event of a British withdrawal. They would revert to which Constituent State and how? This is where the definitions that bother me personally, or their absence, start to count.Is the extent of the territory of each CS calculated on the basis of the territory of the RoC or of Cyprus as a geographical entity?

I think you will find your answers here:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewconten ... %20plan%22

As to what would happen after the British pulled out?? Joking? Who said they even think of it? Why would they try to safeguard rights on the territorial waters, the continental shelf and the EEZ of the bases if they were considering of pulling out EVER?

by **kimon07** » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:41 pm

Bananiot wrote:But, I also talked about Loukis Loukaides, who was the flagship of the anti Annan contingent. What do you have to say about him? Is he more credible, does he have a valid opinion on this matter?

And the link? Please????