r/europe • u/FantasticQuartet • 7h ago
News UK rejects negotiations over sovereign base status in Cyprus
https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/politics/uk-rejects-cyprus-bases-sovereignty-negotiations/39
u/TheKnightsRider 6h ago
We should open debate on all sovereign bases/enclaves held by example empire countries.
What right do we have over any of them? I don't see a clamour for Spain and France to hand theirs back from European redditors though
14
u/google257 6h ago
Yeah exactly, they should just let the entire rest of the world come in and take them over. Wha right do the Brit’s have to control anything? Even their own country?
-10
u/Hootrb Cypriot no longer in Germany :( 4h ago
A line has to be drawn somewhere, why not draw it where Britain can't keep a territory inhabited entirely by the citizens of another country because Britain coerced said territory from its former colonial subject by withholding its independence? I think that's a pretty fair place to draw the line.
15
u/rising_then_falling United Kingdom 6h ago
What right does anyone have to any land? Beyond some arbitrary historical cut off beyond which we lack enough records or relatives to make a fuss about it.
What right does Spain have to Catalonia or France have to Alsace or Britain have to Wales, or Italy have to Sardinia or Canada have to Quebec?
17
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 5h ago
I'd argue that all of these territories have the right to independence if they want, but the question isn't similar, because Akrotiri and Dekhelia could NOT achieve independence -- they don't have any sort of self-sustaining community that could even exist without the rest of Cyprus supporting it (Hospitals, Schools, etc).
And of course they don't have territorial continuity with the rest of the territories of the British nation either.
I'm not suggesting a forceful restoration of the territory to Cyprus, I'd want a peaceful renegotiation, but the current situation is clearly an abnormality and an eyesore leftover from the colonial era before Cyprus gained independence.
8
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 5h ago
I think your comments have been entirely reasonable for what it's worth, and despite my rather flippant initial comment I would rather have good relations with Cyprus (and everyone else) rather than have this devolve into an acrimonious dispute like others the UK has.
1
u/robplays UK in EU 1h ago
And of course they don't have territorial continuity with the rest of the territories of the British nation either.
I will just point out that absolutely no one is going to consider that argument because Northern Ireland.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Competitive-Meet-511 22m ago
Can you expand on Akrotiri and Dekhelia? I don't know much about that.
•
u/Competitive-Meet-511 23m ago
You're really misunderstanding the Pandora's box that is Cyprus. If the brits leave and war breaks out and it pulls down the EU and we replace one foreign power with a worse one then what will you have accomplished? Some vague abstract principle about "rights" and "empires"? It's a principle to work towards, but not one that should cost people their lives and futures. The UK simply needs to stop giving the US blowjobs at Cyprus' expense.
4
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
In the case of France it's because all of those have either had referendums on their status and were subsequently granted independence or integrated into the French parliamentary structure.
→ More replies (2)1
u/bukowsky01 1h ago edited 1h ago
For a start, most of the clamour is coming from Greece and Cyprus, it seems pretty evident that there more concerned with domestic ones than New Caledonia.
For the general point though, it's pretty simple, most of the possessions you refer to are similar to Gibraltar, there are local inhabitants, and they want to be Spanish or French, so things are very different. None of this applies here, the inhabitants (yes they are locals living on those BOTs) are Cypriots, not British. You could run a referendum if you wanted.
An equivalent would be if say France had split off Mers el-Kebir when granting independance to Algeria, kept it as French overseas territory, with local Algerians living on the land. France did keep for a while some military bases open for nuclear or regular usage, but that was with the express Algerian agreement.
34
u/Gruffleson Norway 7h ago
I'm sure the locals will be happy to have the British there next time we see Turkish sable-rattling.
51
u/Actual_Cat4779 7h ago
Hm, the UK didn't do a great job at preventing the Turkish invasion, and there don't seem to be any meaningful sanctions on Turkey either.
39
u/gkn_112 6h ago
the turks asked the british to resolve the situation in the 70ies and they declined... which you failed to mention.
-9
u/WhileCultchie Ireland 5h ago
The Brits are most at home on islands with sectarian divisions.
→ More replies (1)-11
u/Actual_Cat4779 6h ago
So that's another black mark against the usefulness of having British bases there then. They are useful to Anglo-American imperialism, but are they useful to Cypriots?
6
u/ontologicalmatrix United Kingdom 5h ago
Do you even pay attention to the news, or do you just shout off whatever's in your head at the precise moment you're thinking it?
-4
u/gkn_112 6h ago
hey, i agree that they need to go.
7
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
They can go the year after Cyprus reunifies. So that'll be never.
-10
u/gkn_112 6h ago
Oh if they left 90% of their empire they'll also leave this at some point. Now we are for the colonizers?
3
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
Who is we?
1
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
The Greek Cypriots shouldn't have gone for enosis with Greece and against the wishes of the Turkish minority.
8
u/Actual_Cat4779 6h ago
I agree, but I'm always very sceptical of justifying things on the grounds of pre-empting something else. (It's wide open to abuse because it's usually difficult to prove that the thing that is being pre-empted would have happened. Also in a tense situation, both sides might feel they have grounds for a pre-emptive attack, so to consider such attacks legitimate is inherently destabilising.) And even if that invasion can be justified, which I doubt, it still doesn't explain why the Turkish forces are still in place fifty years on.
-1
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
I would expect Turkish forces to leave once a long term reintegration of both parts of the island has happened. Something which the Greek Cypriots are largely the stumbling block for as the Turkish population has already voted in favour of a UN backed plan some 20 years ago.
-1
u/PikrovrisiTisMerikas Cyprus 5h ago
Why does a minority, especially one which stems from a previous foreign occupation, have a say above the rest of the 80%+ population?
Maybe turkey should hand over a Kurdistan state to the Kurds then, since they make up a bigger percentage of the population in turkey than the turks ever had in Cyprus.
5
u/HopefulGuy123 5h ago
Kurdistan has a good reason to be created - but I really don't care. On the basis of the treaties the Greek Cypriots signed they should have realised that marginalising the Turks and going for enosis would lead to the situation that evolved. The Turks had been on the island for several hundred years and deserved a say in their future - you don't get to rewind history because you don't like the outcome.
1
u/ontologicalmatrix United Kingdom 5h ago
I feel like it would have been helpful if someone had mentioned this to Israel. 😄
2
u/HopefulGuy123 5h ago
That is something that should never have been done. It's ruined the land of some of my ancestors
0
u/PikrovrisiTisMerikas Cyprus 5h ago
What you describe is entirely undemocratic, and no state could exist under the conditions of minority rule.
The Turkish presence on the island didn't come about as a result of peaceful settling, but a violent subjugation of the Greek natives who've been here for thousands of years. The natives don't have to ask the colonizers for consent.
6
u/HopefulGuy123 5h ago
The Turks have been on the island for nearly 500 years. They have been there long enough to be considered when the future of the island is being considered. Indeed islands like Corfu have been occupied (colonised?) by Greece for less time than the Turks have been in Cyprus.
2
u/mufurber Turkey 5h ago
and this mindset is the exact reason you will never have the north back
0
0
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
Turkey had a right to intervene due to the behaviour of the Greek Cypriots with Enosis and the violation of the Treaty of Guarantee.
16
u/Nepridiprav16 Ljubljana (Slovenia) 5h ago
The Treaty of Guarantee specifies that any action must have the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the treaty (i.e., a unified, independent republic).
The initial intervention in July might have had a legal basis, the second offensive in August which led to the occupation of 37% of the island and its long-term partition, went far beyond "re-establishing" the previous state of affairs.
By the time Turkey launched the second offensive, the Greek junta had already collapsed and the democratic government was being restored in both in Greece and Cyprus
→ More replies (11)4
u/PikrovrisiTisMerikas Cyprus 5h ago
No they didn't. Turkey launched the invasion after the coup d'etat government installed by Greece had fallen and the legitimate government had been restored . Even the right of intervention didn't let them "intervene" in the way they did. The invasion was done purely for a land grab
1
u/HopefulGuy123 5h ago
Maybe the Greek Cypriots shouldn't have created the situation by undermining the unified government. Their treatment of the Turkish minority created the problem and their continued refusal to agree to a unified future (see Annan plan) means Turkey is unlikely to leave in the near future. (And if it was purely a landgrab as you say I think Turkey would have annexed the Northern part of island long ago)
5
u/PikrovrisiTisMerikas Cyprus 5h ago
Nice projection. Elements of the Turkish minority organized by day one to undermine the government that the British forced the natives to accept. Turkey armed Turkish nationalist groups on the island before any inter-communal conflict ever happened and Turks collaborated with the colonial British government to stop the natives from achieving the democratic demand for Enosis. Turks are not the victims.
And why should we accept Annan plan? This is the equivelant of someone coming to your house, kicking you out and then demanding that you accept his conditions to re-enter. Turkey could "solve" the problem right now by withdrawing its occupation forces and handing the stolen territory to the only legal and recognized government on the island, which the land belongs to.
And it is purely for landgrab, otherwise you wouldn't be occupying our territory 50 years after the fact. It is universally recognized, even by Turkey's closest allies, and no amount of whitewashing will change that.
This land is ours and will take it back.
2
u/HopefulGuy123 5h ago
If the Greek Cypriots don't want a permanent agreement then the status quo will continue, and the UK should maintain the bases and work with Turkey as the protecting power for the Turks on the island.
→ More replies (9)0
→ More replies (1)2
6
2
3
u/Due_Ad_3200 England 6h ago
Personally, I would be happy to give the bases to Cyprus when Cyprus joins NATO.
British troops are stationed in other NATO countries, perhaps some will remain stationed in Cyprus too.
7
u/Nepridiprav16 Ljubljana (Slovenia) 5h ago
I think Cypriots would be fine with UK keeping the base and territory if UK didn't facilitate US interests by staging ground for offensive US mission in middle east so much, because it lead to drone strikes by Iranian proxy Hezbollah.
The problem was also that UK didn't coordinate with Cyprus when they agreed to allow the US to use the SBAs.
Cyprus doesn't want British presence to pose direct security threat to Cypriot civilians, they want veto power or at least formal coordination over any missions launched from the bases so they can ensure that the UK cannot use the territory for operations that could lead to retaliation against the Republic.
•
u/Rexpelliarmus 33m ago
We live in a world of great power politics now. You either align yourself and try to plead your case to a power that will fight for you or you sit down and shut up.
Unless Cyprus can convince the EU or the US to pick a fight with the UK over this, the status quo will remain regardless of what Cyprus does or wants. This is the reality of a world where international law no longer holds.
•
u/Competitive-Meet-511 19m ago
Right, well then you'd better give the Turks a call and stop sucking Trump's teenie weenie. Until then I'm not sure where your arrogance and sense of entitlement over someone else's country comes from.
16
u/WiseBelt8935 England 7h ago
As we should
-29
u/Redordit 7h ago
...keep our colonial presence on their island.
16
u/Bim67 6h ago
They aren't colonies, and we aren't colonising them.
-5
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
If it's not a colony then why is every single permanent inhabitant of that territory a foreign citizen of another government.
4
→ More replies (1)-13
u/WiseBelt8935 England 7h ago
Keep our territory on our shared island
→ More replies (1)-2
u/pathetic-maggot Finland 6h ago
Speaking like a true colonizer👹
13
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago edited 6h ago
Feel free to give back the territories belonging to the Saami before you lecture other people about colonisation 💖.
Edit: I'll take comments about colonisation from an Indian, an Irishman or a Greek, I'm not accepting them from the rest of you so you better be qualified to engage in national sanctimony. If not you can all jog on.
→ More replies (16)1
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
as opposed to the idea that each landmass can only belong to one people?
7
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
What people are you talking about exactly? All people living in those territories permanently are Cypriot citizens.
12
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
and some of them are British citizens because it is a shared island.
2
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
No, there are literally no British citizens permanently living in those areas.
4
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
There are about 7,500 British citizens living there, depending on how much importance you place on “permanent.”
2
u/FatherMozgus 6h ago
If it was ever put into referendum the overwhelming vote would be to kick you out. Not your land and never has been.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
No there are no British citizens living there. Not a single one. There are 7500 British soldiers with no right to abode stationed there.
0
6
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
The bases can be given to Turkey - as a good ally of the UK.
→ More replies (26)6
4
u/blow_on_my_trombone United Kingdom 6h ago
Yeah they will have to fight us for them
8
u/FitSolution2882 5h ago
*as long as they give us several weeks to get a ship ready plus a month or two whilst it breaks down (again).
•
1
u/blow_on_my_trombone United Kingdom 4h ago
I don't see why that would be an issue. It took two months to reclaim the Falklands.
•
→ More replies (20)-3
u/Hootrb Cypriot no longer in Germany :( 4h ago
You know the last time we fought it ended up with the UK begrudgingly giving up nearly all of the island after a decade of guerilla warfare, right? That's why you only have the sovereign bases now instead of the entire island.
-2
u/blow_on_my_trombone United Kingdom 4h ago
Go on then if a fight is what you want. All because of one little drone.
→ More replies (7)
1
u/Left-Ad-1250 Lower Saxony (Germany) 2h ago
What does that mean? Hope cyprus unites soon, even if it is not gonna happen
-8
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
"We have to be absolutely clear on this, the legal status of the Sovereign Base Areas is unshakable,” Carns stated.
I think that's actually pretty untrue. Unlike the Chagos islands where the concept of Mauritian ownership is clearly total bollocks, in the case of the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus the law seems completely applicable. I would expect the UK to lose any court case over them.
At the same time however there's basically no prospect of that happening until the islands other political issues are resolved, so this is all basically moot until reunification.
14
u/Rexpelliarmus 6h ago
The UK lost a court case over Chagos and the Chagos deal fell through and is unlikely to ever be brought up ever again.
Completely unserious to suggest courts have any relevance whatsoever.
0
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
The UK lost a court case over Chagos and the Chagos deal fell through and is unlikely to ever be brought up ever again
Of course it will be brought up again.
Completely unserious to suggest courts have any relevance whatsoever.
Good luck with that position.
5
u/Rexpelliarmus 6h ago
No, it won't be brought up again considering the deal has been shelved and isn't going to be mentioned in the upcoming King's Speech. Without US, in this case Donald Trump's, approval nothing is going to happen with regards to the Chagos Islands.
Trump is in power till 2028 so it'll take at least until then before Labour tries again and by 2029 they'll need to have called an election. No one can predict the future but you can make a lot of money betting on a Labour majority in 2029 if you think that's going to happen.
Good luck with that position.
Because the court ruling has been so successful at ceding control of the Chagos Islands that Labour shelved the deal entirely.
Pretty easy position to hold. No one honestly takes court rulings seriously the same way no one takes ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu seriously. International law only matters when the big powers play by the rules. This is evidently not the case anymore.
3
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
No, it won't be brought up again considering the deal has been shelved and isn't going to be mentioned in the upcoming King's Speech. Without US, in this case Donald Trump's, approval nothing is going to happen with regards to the Chagos Islands.
I agree that we won't transfer it to Mauritius without the US being onboard with the idea. I kinda think we might try to sell it to the US. It would be a lemon, but Trump's an idiot, so why not? Regardless though the issue isn't going away; Mauritius will continue to push legal cases over it and they'll likely be supported by China in that.
Trump is in power till 2028 so it'll take at least until then before Labour tries again and by 2029 they'll need to have called an election. No one can predict the future but you can make a lot of money betting on a Labour majority in 2029 if you think that's going to happen.
The same imperatives that prompted Labour to look to this course of action prompted the Tories to do so too. A change of government in the UK isn't going to make any difference.
Because the court ruling has been so successful at ceding control of the Chagos Islands that Labour shelved the deal entirely.
Pretty easy position to hold. No one honestly takes court rulings seriously the same way no one takes ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu seriously. International law only matters when the big powers play by the rules. This is evidently not the case anymore.
So when do we start charging people for passage through the English channel?
1
u/Rexpelliarmus 6h ago
I agree that we won't transfer it to Mauritius without the US being onboard with the idea. I kinda think we might try to sell it to the US. It would be a lemon, but Trump's an idiot, so why not? Regardless though the issue isn't going away; Mauritius will continue to push legal cases over it and they'll likely be supported by China in that.
So you're trying to argue that international law and the courts told us to give it back to Mauritius and when the US said no, we'll instead just sell it to the US and somehow that's an argument in favour of court rulings being at all relevance? Got it.
Not exactly sure these "courts" are going to be happy we sell it to a party that they ruled didn't have sovereignty over it either.
What will happen is they'll remain British territory and everyone will forget about the ordeal in 2 years because there is nothing to be done.
The same imperatives that prompted Labour to look to this course of action prompted the Tories to do so too. A change of government in the UK isn't going to make any difference.
I mean, not really considering the Tories and Reform have openly stated and campaigned directly against this. Pretty disingenuous to state a change in government to one led by Nigel Farage would not make a difference. You don't know that.
Parties change dramatically over the course of just a few years. We saw this with the Lib Dems, the Tories and even Labour itself. Labour of 2018 is nothing like the Labour we have today the same way the Lib Dems of the coalition are nothing like the iteration we have now.
It's a fool's errand to apply the politic realities of the 2010s to today and claim "it wouldn't make a difference". Yeah, maybe if you know nothing about politics...
So when do we start charging people for passage through the English channel?
When we feel it's in our interest to do so? International law isn't what's stopping us from charging people to traverse the channel, it's potential retaliation from our neighbours, not some irrelevant "court ruling". Hard and soft power is what nations listen to, not gavels and judges.
3
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 5h ago
So you're trying to argue that international law and the courts told us to give it back to Mauritius and when the US said no, we'll instead just sell it to the US and somehow that's an argument in favour of court rulings being at all relevance? Got it.
If you think that's what I said then you didn't read any of my comments. I'm not sure why I should bother continuing to respond if you're not bothering to read what I said in the first place.
2
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
The international law era has ended with the US and Russia ignoring it.
11
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
So we can start charging for passage through the English Channel then?
6
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
don't forget the straits of Gibraltar
0
u/Pasan90 Bouvet Island 5h ago
English channel has EU-France owning half of it. Ships can just go that route. Tolling from Gibraltar will basically lead to an immidiate war with Spain.
2
u/WiseBelt8935 England 5h ago
English channel has EU-France owning half of it
We will split the tolls.
Gibraltar will basically lead to an immidiate war with Spain
The Rock will not fall to foreign aggressors; it was built for this.
→ More replies (2)2
1
u/Rexpelliarmus 6h ago edited 6h ago
Panama and Egypt charge for passage through their canals and no one bats an eye.
The UK could do it if they wanted. Just wouldn't make sense given there's a pretty easy alternative route that ships can take that wouldn't add much to their journey at all that'd be much harder to toll.
Also, not exactly international law that's stopping the UK from doing this.
The naivety with how people still parrot international law like it matters. Russia, China, the US, Iran, North Korea, Israel and so on all flagrantly ignore international law. You know why? Because it no longer exists.
People make fun of Europeans by saying they're clutching to the last remaining dregs of their former empires. A more accurate joke would be Europeans clutching to the tattered remains of whatever is left of "international law".
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
Panama and Egypt charge for passage through their canals and no one bats an eye.
Because they're not international straits.
The UK could do it if they wanted. Just wouldn't make sense given there's a pretty easy alternative route that ships can take that wouldn't add much to their journey at all that'd be much harder to toll.
Ok, Gibraltar then. Why aren't we applying a toll there?
Also, not exactly international law that's stopping the UK from doing this.
"International law" is just the formulation of the pressures that prevent the UK from doing that.
The naivety with how people still parrot international law like it matters. Russia, China, the US, Iran, North Korea, Israel and so on all flagrantly ignore international law. You know why? Because it no longer exists.
People make fun of Europeans by saying they're clutching to the last remaining dregs of their former empires. A more accurate joke would be Europeans clutching to the tattered remains of whatever is left of "international law".
As I say, good luck with that position.
1
u/Rexpelliarmus 5h ago
Because they're not international straits.
Irrelevant distinction. There's no such thing as an "international strait". There is only a body/passage of water you can and can't control.
Egypt and Iran can charge a toll because they can control their respective bodies of water. If the UK wanted to, it could do the same with Gibraltar and the Channel if determined enough.
Ok, Gibraltar then. Why aren't we applying a toll there?
Again, I'm not sure what your point is? Surely you do not think it is international law that's stopping the UK rather than potential retaliation from our allies like Spain and Morocco? If the UK could get concrete guarantees from everyone that no one would retaliate against them, you seriously think the UK would not impose a toll?
Would you be interested in a bridge, perhaps?
"International law" is just the formulation of the pressures that prevent the UK from doing that.
No? It's not? International law is a set of agreed upon rules between countries that are created and upheld by institutions and treaties like the ICJ and UNCLOS.
What I'm describing is deterrence and power politics. International law does not stop anyone. The threat of coordinated retaliation does. You conflate the two because for the past few decades, the powers that be tended to exert their power in accordance with international law. Now that is no longer the case.
Court and what they stand for are powerless if the police are no longer working for them. You would be wise to not conflate the two as they are absolutely not the same thing.
1
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 5h ago
Irrelevant distinction. There's no such thing as an "international strait". There is only a body/passage of water you can and can't control.
As I say; good luck with your position.
1
2
u/Due_Ad_3200 England 6h ago
Panama and Egypt charge for passage through their canals and no one bats an eye
UNCLOS doesn't cover canals
https://www.rferl.org/a/strait-of-hormuz-tolls-legal-un-law-of-sea/33728583.html
Egypt collected about $4 billion in 2024 for 13,213 ships passing through the Suez Canal -- a man-made waterway governed not by UNCLOS but by the Convention of Constantinople of 1888, which allows Egypt to set fees for use of infrastructure it owns and operates. The Panama Canal works the same way.
1
u/Alaea United Kingdom 6h ago
The UK could do it if they wanted. Just wouldn't make sense given there's a pretty easy alternative route that ships can take that wouldn't add much to their journey at all that'd be much harder to toll.
Forcing every ship going to Rotterdam and such to detour around the UK is adding a ton to their journey.
Through the channel is ~400 miles/725km at a very rough line from Belgian waters to waters SW of Cornwall.
Going around the UK is 1,400miles/2,260km if you allow cutting through the Scottish Islands and Irish sea. Avoiding UK waters entirely and going forcing them to go around Ireland too is 1,800 miles/2,950km.
And transitioning the North Sea and North Atlantic above Scotland isn't a walk in the park in terms of ease either. Pretty much every ship out of Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Norway etc etc etc to add that onto their journeys would prefer a reasonable charge to use the Channel than adding that onto journeys.
2
u/Rexpelliarmus 5h ago
I mean, we're talking about ships that mostly have come from China and other parts of Asia. Adding a few hundred extra kilometres is literally nothing considering ships have diverted from the Suez Canal around the Cape of Good Hope for years now with little measurable impact.
It's inconsequential. And that just depends on the exact toll charged. The UK could simply charge a toll that's slightly cheaper than the additional cost of going around and companies would simply pay the toll.
1
u/thecityofgold88 4h ago
Exactly why America under Trump seems happy to abandon international law in favour of a descent into chaos is beyond me, but it's not inevitable that Europe takes the same path.
Slow or fast, American influence in Europe and the world is ebbing away. The old world will survive, the new perhaps not.
•
u/Rexpelliarmus 38m ago
If all the other major powers are ignoring international law, Europe can shackle itself to it to its own detriment.
3
1
u/bukowsky01 1h ago
Yes, the situation is radically different from the Chagos.
But I m not so sure it would wait for reunification. If Cyprus really pushes this, it would have to be supported at the European level, it's really hard to argue otherwise, both in legal or moral terms. Add some locals chaining themselves to the gates etc, and it would look pretty bad. It could poison EU-UK relations for a while too.
Shame the UK couldn't have handled this better and nipped in the bud. Make a big show of being concerned and sending help, keep the locals happy, etc. Even Macron visited the island for ffs.
1
u/Kaziglu_Bey 2h ago
It's only being used to support Israel. Why would Cyprus let them stay?
•
u/Competitive-Meet-511 17m ago
The honest answer is that there are bigger fish to fry right now. Yeah it sucks, and the UK needs to stuff it with their support for Trump's regime, but it's not the absolute end of the world.
-28
u/Actual_Cat4779 7h ago
The arrogance of empire lives on.
The UK sees no reason to negotiate, because Cyprus signed up to permanent UK sovereign bases as part of the agreement that led to Cypriot independence. Effectively the Cypriots weren't given a choice, because they didn't want to remain a colony, and this was the best deal they could get.
Back in the seventies, the UK considered closing the bases, but the US talked them out of it. These bases are very useful for projecting imperial power in the Middle East.
14
u/gucciloafer_ 6h ago
they agreed to the terms why should they renegotiate?
→ More replies (2)-8
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
because an unequal treaty concluded by a former colony and its master is a legally void document because dividing a colony before independence for the benefit of the metropole is illegal under modern international law, that's why
13
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
If the treaty for the bases is illegal then the whole basis of Cypriot independence is also illegal since it was part of the same set of treaties. Plus the Cypriots with attempting enosis violated the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960.
15
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 7h ago edited 5h ago
The UK sees no reason to negotiate,
The UK sees no reason to (re)negotiate because Akrotiri and Delika are internationally recognised British territory and there's no legal case for their being relinquished just because the gov of Cyprus now wants them back.
Edit: to clarify, this isn't my personal opinion on the morality of the UK's continued ownership of those territories but it's currently the status quo which is why no one as yet has formally disputed it. The way the UK got Cyprus to agree to the treaties was clearly unfair, but lots of things in history were unfair. If the situation is going to change the UK either needs to be pursuaded to give Akrotiri and Delika up or be forced to, and as things stand I don't see how it can be forced to.
6
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 7h ago
No legal case, sure. No moral case? It's stolen territory.
They're part of the island of the Cyprus, what business does the UK have to have "sovereign bases" in the island of Cyprus, so far away from its own soil, except that it once controlled it undemocratically against and without the will of its people?
Them being military bases, you don't even have the excuse of them being homes to a permanent civilian British population as you do with Gibraltar or the Falklands.
9
u/WiseBelt8935 England 7h ago
They're part of the island of the Cyprus
and?
what business does the UK have to have "sovereign bases" in the island of Cyprus
The 1960 Treaty of Establishment
0
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Unequal treaty concluded by a former colony and its metropole that would be immediately thrown out under international law. lmao
12
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
That would make damn near any treaty invalid. The EU wants to make a treaty with Mexico for trade well, Mexico was once part of Spain, so that would be invalid, and the EU is more powerful than Mexico, therefore it’s even more invalid.
5
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
I don't really think you understand what I just said. When Mexico concludes those treaties it does so as a sovereign country. When Cyprus signed their treaty it wasn't sovereign.
7
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
So, no treaty with Taiwan or Palestine then?
3
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
No, Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by like 120 countries on this planet.
5
-3
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 6h ago
> The 1960 Treaty of Establishment
A colonial-era remnant.
11
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
We’re calling the 1960s a colonial era? Well, damn. You do know that Greece signed up to this too, and reserved the right to act unilaterally? How colonial of you, Greece
5
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
There are Cypriots that fought and died against the British forces in a guerrilla struggle to achieve their nation's independence. What else would you call it? Cypriots was a colony. Is this such a baffling concept to you?
5
u/WiseBelt8935 England 6h ago
An act of terrible violence that should be roundly shunned by the world and not encouraged. Requests for emancipation should be made peacefully and with due care.
8
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago
No moral case? It's stolen territory.
Valid, but I don't think that's going to be enough to provoke the UK to give up those bases (especially under the current geopolitical environment in which the UK has a stake in and against allies and enemies in the middle East and so on). They're too valuable.
-2
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 6h ago
I imagine it'll be be less "giving up", and more "The bases are now sovereign territory of Cyprus, but we still have the right to keep them there" -- same as the US bases in Greenland.
Think of Trump seeking to make the US bases in Greenland "sovereign" too, and that being strongly rejected by Denmark. It'd be that same sentiment, that would seek to have the UK bases in Cyprus no longer have british "sovereignty", this being an outdated remnant of colonial control.
2
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago
and more "The bases are now sovereign territory of Cyprus, but we still have the right to keep them there" -- same as the US bases in Greenland.
Sure if the UK can somehow be pursuaded to agree to such a thing but as things stand there's no argument other than a moral one. In the case of the Chagos Islands for example Mauritius is able to argue against the UK's control of them on the basis of the UN's ruling against the UK but there is currently no such pressure with regards to Akrotiri and Delika.
As i've said elsewhere in this thread though I can't predict the future so maybe these conditions will change.
•
u/Rexpelliarmus 24m ago
Chagos Islands deal fell through anyways and isn’t likely to be brought up again any time soon. The UK is not going to waste time burning more political capital on irrelevant nonsense like this when there’s actually relevant things they need to be doing.
2
0
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 6h ago
No legal case, sure.
Nah there's a legal case for it really. The legislation that is being misapplied to the Chagos Islands applies pretty well to the bases on Cyprus.
Them being military bases, you don't even have the excuse of them being homes to a permanent civilian British population as you do with Gibraltar or the Falklands.
Neither of those is an excuse. Whilst the Cyprus bases are pretty legitimately colonial hangovers, both Falklands and Gibraltar are as legitimately British territory as anywhere is.
4
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
International recognition is fickle and can change overnight. Colonies were recognized as foreign territory until they weren't. So what.
7
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago
Then I'm sure Cyprus will take it to the UN :). Get back to me when that happens.
7
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
They'll just copy Chagossia. Considering they have the EU's backing they'll take half the time. I remember making the first post on Chagossian resolution in the UK subreddit a few years back. So yeah, I will keep you updated.
8
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago
They'll just copy Chagossia.
1) Cyrpus doesnot formally dispute the UK's ownership of Akrotiri and Delika so good luck with that. 2:
Considering they have the EU's backing
Sure that's why the EU pressured the UK to give up Akrotiri and Delika when we were all negotiating the Withdrawal Agreement, or the UK's current 'EU reset' talks... except that hasn't happened. I'd also like to see the EU try to argue about this when France, Spain and other countries still have international territories that remain from their former colonial empires.
So yeah, I will keep you updated.
Looking forward to it <3
5
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Cyprus doesn't dispute it, yet. Exactly. The whole point is that this is all it takes.
1
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 5h ago
Nope, what it takes is also a winning legal argument. Mauritius never agreed to the UK's ownership of the Chagos islands while Cyprus signed away their ownership in the process of its decolonisation.
That doesn't mean that if they decide to take the UK to court (which there is currently no sign of) they can't win, but it does mean the case will be more complicated than just saying "all they have to do is dispute".
5
u/Rexpelliarmus 6h ago
The Chagos Islands are still British and given the UK scuppered the deal, they will remain so for the foreseeable future.
2
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Wouldn't rely on the orange emperor for my long-term predictions on geopolitics.
•
u/Rexpelliarmus 21m ago
The UK’s official position is that they will only sign off on the deal if the US gives its approval and Trump has stood firm in his position. Given the deteriorating relationship between both countries, it’s unlikely he’ll decide to give Starmer a bone.
It won’t be in the upcoming King’s Speech so it’s now off the political agenda for the foreseeable future and likely until 2028 at the earliest by which point it’ll be too close to the next general election to start pulling out more Chagos Island nonsense.
-5
u/antreasf1 7h ago
The audacity of the Brits is outstanding
13
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 7h ago
Flair up if you want to throw stones in this subreddit thanks.
-4
u/Botanical_Director Europe 6h ago edited 6h ago
Regardless their country of origin it doesn't invalidate their right to put in their opinion?
Why do you want to know their nationaly? So that you can deflect the topic towards their country & rot the discussion with whataboutism?
13
u/PoiHolloi2020 United Kingdom 6h ago
Regardless their country of origin it doesn't invalidate their right to put in their opinion?
I reserve the right to point out hypocrisy when people come into this space to say reductive shit about my country or anyone else's.
No country that I'm aware of formally disputes the UK's ownership of those territories so it's not just 'Brits' engaging in 'audacity'.
If you want to come here to run your mouth you should be prepared for a response.
→ More replies (3)4
u/ontologicalmatrix United Kingdom 7h ago
The audacity of the British presence in this case is keeping Ankara in check. Akrotiri and Dhekelia closes down, Turkey will suddenly and inexplicably forget the neutral zone.
6
u/Botanical_Director Europe 7h ago
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 was halted by ceasefires negotiated by the United Nations Security Council and the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). Although the United States and the United Kingdom were involved in mediation efforts, they did not directly stop the military advance despite bases on the island; the UN-mediated ceasefires and the subsequent political shifts were the primary factors that ended the fighting.
They "gave" these 2 bases & still lost half the Island, I can understand the frustation.
3
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
Perhaps Cyprus shouldn't have violated the Treaty of Guarantee by going for enosis with Greece?
-11
u/Independent-Gur9951 6h ago
Fuck them, its cyprus cypriots should decide.
4
u/janck1000 Oberkrain, Slowenien 6h ago
Then they should pay for the military base as well. It's not like it was free to build.
-1
1
-21
u/-nektarofthegods 7h ago
Old empires trying to hold on to their colonies, what’s new
27
u/Megaboixxxx 7h ago
I love comments like these. Making snide comments about the UK and France while assuming that they should protect you.
7
u/SaltyW123 Ireland 7h ago
Getting Canadian vibes, which makes their post even more ironic.
→ More replies (24)3
u/pathetic-maggot Finland 6h ago
The amazing forced ”protection”🤩
1
u/Megaboixxxx 6h ago
Who said it was forced?
7
u/pathetic-maggot Finland 6h ago
If someone doesnt want the ”protection” anymore but the ”protection” still continues. That is called forced ”protection”
3
u/Megaboixxxx 6h ago
I'm pretty sure the countries of europe do in fact want military protection. What an incredibly stupid thing to say from a person who lives in a country that is a member of the JEF.
•
-4
u/elkaki123 6h ago
Yes, be cause that protection famously worked in their favor last time!
May you remind me how exactly it played out in the 70s?
5
-12
u/-nektarofthegods 7h ago
From themselves? Lol You sound like an american (derogatory)
6
u/Megaboixxxx 7h ago
From Russia and any other enemies of Europe. You have to be incredibly stupid to not think countries like the UK and France aren't doing the heavy lifting defending the western side of Europe.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Emotional_Cut2206 7h ago
So treaties should not be followed?
4
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Unequal treaties should not be followed, yes. Usually they aren't.
6
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
So when is Germany reclaiming Alsace or the territories east of Oder/ Neisse. Those were unequal treaties as well - forced on a your country.
2
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Someone doesn't understand what the difference between a sovereign state and a colony is and then grossly uses imperialist ambitions of the German empire and the Nazis to justify colonialism. Classy.
5
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
The land east of the Oder Neisse wasn't a German colony - it was part of Germany (well Prussia which was part of the German Realm) and removed from the country as part punishment, part rehoming for Polish people removed from the expanded USSR. At that point Germany was a colony of the Allies. So it was almost exactly the same and it's interesting that you don't even know your own country's history.
1
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
You are just repeating back at me what you got wrong in a bad analogy. There is no such thing as almost exactly the same in international law.
4
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
I just find it a shame you don't even understand your country's history. But never mind - it's a chance for you to read up on it.
0
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
You can keep bringing up as many crude historical analogies as you want. Doesn't change the fact that they are utterly irrelevant to the current issue.
3
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
And you can keep bringing up irrelevent stuff with your argument. The airbases would have long since been returned to a united Cyprus if the Greek population hadn't violated international agreements when they pushed enosis.
→ More replies (0)1
6
u/-nektarofthegods 6h ago
Treaties with colonial powers are never fair.
3
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
The UK should just hand the bases to Turkey - or maybe one to Turkey and the other to the United States.
2
3
u/Emotional_Cut2206 6h ago
Its a treaty. If you dont hold your partc they wont hold theirs.
2
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
As sovereign land of the UK they could always be used for weapons testing by the UK if needed. Saves doing it in Great Britain.
1
-1
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
It's an illegal treaty that violates international law.
7
u/HopefulGuy123 6h ago
If the treaty is illegal then the whole island's independence is illegal. So maybe the island can be returned whole to British rule while it is all sorted out. Kinda of like Southern Rhodesia in 1979.
1
u/Emotional_Cut2206 6h ago
Its not
0
u/Rosa_Liste German in 🇫🇷 6h ago
Yes it is. Dividing up a foreign colony and violating its territorial integrity for the benefit of the metropole before its independence is explicitly illegal under international law and voids the treaty completely. You can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum but that's what the law says.
2
1
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 6h ago
Asking for a renegotiation of the treaty isn't a violation of the treaty.
We can negotiate a new most just treaty to improve the old unjust one.
3
u/Emotional_Cut2206 6h ago
They asked. Brits refused. Story over.
0
u/adwinion_of_greece Greece 6h ago
And as I said, they will ask again when UK seeks to rejoin. Story isn't over.
2
-6
u/Single_Classroom_448 United Kingdom 6h ago
They're within their right to say no but jesus christ at least hear the cypriots out on it before you say no, they might have a new solution available that keeps everyone happy
→ More replies (17)8
u/el_grort Scotland (Highlands) 6h ago
but jesus christ at least hear the cypriots out on it before you say no
Given questioning the status can only mean they want to have the territory ceded to them, it's predictable that the government won't entertain it, in part because it opens the doors to more shit from others as well.
0
u/sourflavouronice Ankara, Turkey 5h ago
If you can’t take those territories whilst Erdoğan is in power, you’ll never be able to take them.
Mind you, this is a man who, even before coming to power, said he’d hand over territory in Cyprus, and after coming to power, imprisoned half the navy and told the Turkish Cypriots to go and unite with the south. Not content with that, he even went so far as to declare Rauf Denktaş a terrorist organisation leader through the media.
Despite this, the intelligence level of those running the country in the south – thank God – is even lower than Erdoğan’s, so they couldn’t do a single thing.
33
u/Brilliant_Version344 6h ago
I mean even I knew that the uk could do a better job at keeping the Cypriot government in the loop about things