lots of back of forth inserted below
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Grant Hutchison <granthutchison@b...> wrote:
> Michael:
> > whaa
> > i must have misunderstood & dont have the maps
> > do you mean in prescott median frgb strikes only the sw median frnl & strangely far
> inshore or
> > really just off the west end of dry frnl
> Yes. While searching for some sort of map I could post to inform this
> discussion, I found that DeLorme's EarthA software depicts the median
> situation (albeit schematically) as I would predict it from looking at
> the map - very different from Prescott. So I've clipped the relevant map
> from EarthA, and laid on a little dotted purple line to show what
> Prescott shows.
yes & thanx for all that effort because thats what i was also remembering & booking on for the 12nm tripoint
> You'll see from my purple-dotted depiction of Prescott's rendering that
> his "median line" (so marked on his map) runs *parallel* to that stretch
> of coast. It only makes sense if the dry border at some time ran out to
> the very tip of the westernmost peninsula instead of turning SW as it is
> depicted on the maps I have access to.
> Of course anything is possible by treaty, but I can't make the median
> lines work in my head to give any sort of frgbnl tripoint.
again i agree
> & i dont yet see how eez claims could trump sovereign area claims
> > i mean except perhaps as bargaining fodder during negotiations
> > but can so far only manage to see it the other way round
> Well, we both imagine that somewhere out to the northeast the EEZs of gb
> and fr kiss for the first time, and delineate a median line, which
> swoops down towards the strait between Anguilla and Saint Martin. What
> you're suggesting (I think) is that when this median is 12nm from both
> coasts, the French territorial sea suddenly haemorrhages through the
> median line and bulges NW until it impinges on the GB 3nm territorial
> sea when the two coasts are only 15nm apart, where ... well, something
> happens.
yes & what i think happens naturally here also is that anguilla gb gets no argument about its certainly prior claim to 3nm & so the 12nm french territorial sea gets overridden or eclipsed in its turn by british territorial sea everywhere they also meet thus producing a partial eclipse of a partial eclipse or a bulge into a bulge which i think is the correct picture as a matter of conceptual priority as well as of historical precedence
> By analogy with a median line, maybe they form a "20th centile
> line". I can see where you're coming from with that - the stronger juju
> and better mojo of the French territorial sea overwhelms the feeble GB
> EEZ.
no i am not coming from there tho that would be funny but in other words i think in a case like this everyone should get their historic sovereign territorial dues first up to 3nm & then everyone should also get their additional sovereign territorial claims to the extent still possible & only then is there any point talking about eezs or any other less than sovereign territorial claims since claims of actual sovereignty must naturally trump claims to sovereign rights
> But in my head there's a hierarchy of containment, of territorial
> sea within EEZ, that is violated when the French territorial sea bulges
> across the median line. I don't say it's *right*, but it's a point of
> view. Once again, I'd love to hear from someone who knows what happens,
> assuming this has ever been addressed in treaty or international court
> of law.
me too
i was only shooting my mouth off from the hip again as usual
& i certainly do see your point of view
> >> So at "my" level,the
> >> quadripoint at the tip of the exclave changes from High
> >> Seas/Italy/Croatia/Slovenia to Croatia/Italy/Croatia/Slovenia. A
> >> topological anomaly I'm having trouble coming to terms with!
> > right
> > these are the minimax counterparts or poles of this single point
> > so not really an anomaly but just the predictable 2 layers
> My topological problem didn't come from the two layers, but from the
> single point. It comes from my perfs and frags interest: Is an entity
> connected to its parent by a single point an exclave or not?
ahh well that conundrum you have already faced at least twice before if i am not mistaken
so btw how did you resolve it at jungholz & baarle
& cant you just throw this one in that same folder or file or column
> > youve got the everyonese maxiprobability exactly right as high seas
> > tho as peter points out the everyonese miniprobability is now looking
> > like a quintipoint
> Hmm. I don't buy it (though I will come to the shop and look at it
> through the window from time to time). You territorial seas folk don't
> declare a quadripoint every time land meets sea and country meets
> country, although the rules of sovereignty change in both directions.
no we sovereign territory folk normally dont differentiate at all where land meets sea because sovereign territory is continuous there
& we other sovereign rights folk who i swear i also am with you & must be if i am to have any hope of accurately mapping both the inner & the outer edges of the frontier of the everyonese commonwealth so as to produce its most inclusive & therefore truest possible expression
> Why should we (editorial "we", admittedly) EEZ folk buy a territorial
> sea/EEZ boundary?
because your distinct beingness hinges on it & because you only get paid your additional 188nm etc after we all get paid our first 12nm together for of course your eeznesses are also included within our collective sovereignty which however is unsupported in this model without the actual sovereign territory underfoot
> The edge of the EEZ is where influence / no influence
> cuts off at the surface of the earth, and the rest is just a matter of
> degree.
that is correct & i do belatedly acknowledge & certainly salute this surface principle that has evidently led you to include eezs but not shelves in your model
& also to acknowledge that your single model is already an ideal middle ground between the minimum & maximum projections of everyones land that i am seeking & thus a very decent first impression indeed of our common motherland
> > yet what equidistance dues do or would st pierre & miq have all the
> way over in
> > cabot strait which is between canada & canada
> There's a point not strictly in the strait but at its SE end which is
> equidistant from Cape Breton Island, Newfoundland and St P&M. Sea to the
> ESE of that point is necessarily closer to St P&M and therefore French
> by equidistance, but not by mapped boundaries.
yes i understood & wondered about that much too
> >> Marvellous! You've abolished one of my perfs, since St P&M clearly now
> >> have a corridor to the high seas.
> > how can you be sure enough yet to completely abolish it
> Occam's Patent Rarely Errant Razor.
> 1) The French website disapprovingly states that Canada was prepared to
> grant St P&M "no more than" an enclave; *but* they were finally granted
> a "corridor". The contrast is clear: it's not an enclave and it leads
> somewhere - where else is feasible or likely but the high seas?
> 2) It's 200nm long, it heads due south at constant width, and it starts
> farther south than the adjacent Newfoundland coast. Where can it end but
> at the limit of the Canadian EEZ?
> I'm a Scot, and I'm sure enough to bet money. *That's* how sure I am.
ahh my french is execrable & i think you must be right here too now
m