As the Attorney-General is currently explaining to the Cosa, according to his learned opinion there is no legal requirement to keep the contents of behind-closed-doors Cabinet discussions secret. However, in my perhaps not-so-learned opinion there is a political reason to do so. In the Westminster tradition, we call this "collective solidarity"; that is, debates and individual opinions should not be published so that the Cabinet can speak with one voice. in the US tradition I believe you refer to "executive privilege"; that is, debates and individual opinions should not be published so that the executive officers can engage in full and frank debate and individuals cannot be targeted for their advice.
I have already posted to this effect in the Ziu, in a Terpelaziun thread that descended into nastiness, so I'd better repost it here.
1) My Government will not republish any debates or any opinions or comments of individual Cabinet ministers, and we expect that future Governments will follow this precedent.
2) There is no problem with discussing decisions or consensus opinions of previous Governments, as these form part of our tradition of Government which should be known by the public, especially when they give context to decisions of the current Government. But the names of individual Ministers should not be attached to them.
Oof.
(https://i.ibb.co/J5H5Zsz/oof.png) (https://ibb.co/vZkZ9jJ)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 09, 2024, 09:19:59 PM1) My Government will not republish any debates or any opinions or comments of individual Cabinet ministers, and we expect that future Governments will follow this precedent.
2) There is no problem with discussing decisions or consensus opinions of previous Governments, as these form part of our tradition of Government which should be known by the public, especially when they give context to decisions of the current Government. But the names of individual Ministers should not be attached to them.
A good policy. I would hope every future government follows suit.