Tarkinnia

Would Senate action here do any good, or just muddy the waters further? The canal hasn't opened, no tax is being charged, and there is no ripe point for regulation yet. At this point, are we just legislating a solution in search of a problem?

Not that debate isn't good, but is this one developed enough to be worthwhile?

Hofstra wrote:

Would Senate action here do any good, or just muddy the waters further? The canal hasn't opened, no tax is being charged, and there is no ripe point for regulation yet. At this point, are we just legislating a solution in search of a problem?

Not that debate isn't good, but is this one developed enough to be worthwhile?

The canal isn't open, it's under construction and Tummin has the storyline. Definitely correct on that part. Canals in real life can take decades, we'll see how long Tummin has it play out. So that part is something that can't affect Tarkin for awhile until the storyline plays out.

However I think this could be an issue regardless of the canal. Whether or not the canal is open doesn't stop nations from trying to claim and impose taxes on currently open waters, the status quo. That could easily become a flashpoint for conflict in a number of narrow areas. Will it? Maybe or maybe not, but these narrow passages exist now despite the canals construction. I think those two points are only loosely related at best.

I would like to find a workable solution that fits both my concerns and Lafleures, but I don't know if we're getting there or not at this time.

Hofstra wrote:

Would Senate action here do any good, or just muddy the waters further? The canal hasn't opened, no tax is being charged, and there is no ripe point for regulation yet. At this point, are we just legislating a solution in search of a problem?

Not that debate isn't good, but is this one developed enough to be worthwhile?

I think that having this discussion out in the open has been good for the Region as a whole. I think it’s clear that legislating SOMETHING is needed. We need to have some sort of guidelines, although I think they should be fairly loose to allow for RP and storylines through Tummin if possible.

I do appreciate the debate between Senator Lafleure and President TuNasai. It has opened my eyes to both loopholes and has given me a better understanding of the situation ahead.

I currently stand at a point where I believe that we need to define that Nations have control over the water off of their shores up to a certain point. I am for making them more realistic, but also open to stretching that number within reason. I’m thinking possibly 30 miles, as I feel like more than that is a stretch. I think my high number would be 40 miles.

I also believe that we should make it clear that anything beyond that mileage is International waters, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional government. I’m also ok with nobody having jurisdiction over the International waters.

As far as taxation goes, I tend to agree with the President. I lean toward a law that states that any natural waterways (outside of rivers and landlocked water within a Nation’s territory) cannot be taxed for the benefit of any Nation, but that man-made waters can be taxed with approval of multiple Nations and the Senate, as we have seen done in the past.

I could still be swayed, but this is where I currently stand. I’m interested in seeing how others feel with what I’ve said so far.

Something has been chewing at me about international waters. When I think of the concept, I think of open waters and "no other side" for at least several hundred nautical miles. These are bays, passes, straits, and more confined spaces. I do not think of that as "international."

The Strait of Gibraltar is about 36 miles and something like 8 miles at its narrowest. If we give every nation 36 miles that would leave about 3 miles gap between Sarpy and Dixie, no?

I will take two hats here, because the question is both a map fact and a separate opinion.

Cartographer Hat: The Lafleure–Dixiecratia pinch measures in the mid-60s to mid-70s of statute miles on the official map. Seventy-five is a fair high-end rounding. Unfortunately, it is not a surveyor’s figure. Azgaar does not lock a waterline to the foot and any measurement requires quite literally measuring pixels. 65-75 is 100% certain however. If each coast took 36 miles, two belts would overlap on most of that range. At the high-end 75-mile reading you get only a sliver in the middle. It's worth noting the Me-Contested pinch and the Ordinatia-Ibandigo pinch is close to the same distance.

President Hat: That is why I would rather write a rule that does not depend on winning the last five miles.

Each nation gets the same coastal distance. Thirty, 36, or 40 can all be discussed. Where two belts would meet, overlap, or leave only a sliver, through traffic keeps a reserved lane wide enough for ordinary two-way passage. Ten miles is the figure I have in mind. That lane, although shared soverign territory between two nations, cannot carry a general transit tax. The rest of each belt stays sovereign to the individual. Facing states can use it for ports, pilots, and services, and they can consider other fees there so long as those fees apply equally.

That keeps coastal sovereignty. It avoids a fight over whether the pass is 65 or 75. And it keeps a natural gap from becoming a closed tariff just because two shores sit across it.

Imporantly, any rule should also survive the map. Tummin has final authority over the official map. If land is added later(real possibility that is for Tummin's decision if growth necessitates), or the scale is revised, we should not have to invent a new theory of every pass. A standard belt from each coast, and a reserved open lane where belts meet, does that. New shores would get the same treatment. They would not get a special right to close a gap they did not build.

Even if we write this down, it is a baseline, not a ban on story. A Barbary state can still exist. The RPGA already lets a nation defy an RP rule and take the consequences. What I do not want, and I doubt any of us want, is making Barbary the accepted path for every nation on every narrow pass.

Albertexa wrote:

The Strait of Gibraltar is about 36 miles and something like 8 miles at its narrowest. If we give every nation 36 miles that would leave about 3 miles gap between Sarpy and Dixie, no?

I could accept this compromise.

If the Senate has the power to declare it 75 miles, let's include that in any bill/resolution.

I would support a 36/36/3 split and legislate it just as with the Sarpy Isle Development Zone.

Just wanted to check in with everyone in the Senate and see if I could put them down as a supporter of this Amendment.

I can support a 36-mile coastal belt and a 3 mile reserved mid-strip of free navigation.

If the Senate wants to agree that this pinch is 75 miles, I can live with that. I have already said 75 is the higher end of a reasonable range and was the first number I worked with as well, it's certainly a reasonable distance. I think I've spelled out the Azgaar limitations as Cartographer enough as I wanted to be ethical and honest with it. As Cartographer I would be comfortable using 75 as the declared width for this statute, and marking it on the official map. I would use the same method on the other listed pinches, including Ordinatia–Ibandigo.

Ideally - The mid-strip has to be reserved first. No general transit tax on that lane. Three miles is tight, but workable. Five would be better if the chamber will give it.

I'm a fan of that being the rule for all the listed confined passes, not a one-pass copy of the Sarpy zone. Ibandigo-Ordinatia and the Sarpy pass are about the same width, I think this could fix future debates

TLDR: I'm for it, with some small notes about making it universal in application and recognizing our two narrower passages as 75 miles wide as is reasonable per the map.