(03-22-2022, 07:02 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(03-22-2022, 06:16 PM)LFP Wrote: ​​​I wouldn't be too much against this but I still feel like two months is quite a lot of time to sift through discussions held by the previous Cabinet. Further, some Cabinets/PMs have appointed an Advisor to assist them to go through the discussions where if that trend continues, I strongly doubt that two months would be a massive undertaking for them.

The point of the six months (or whatever time is determined) isn't for the Cabinet to have enough time to go through its archives, it's to provide a cooldown period and to allow any sensitive issues to lose their criticality before they are released.

I can not argue against the notion that some non-security related sensitive information will have to be shared with the Assembly if this amendment passes. 

But there has to be some give and take between the sensitivity of some discussions and the Assemblies right to be informed on what is happening behind the scenes. It is kept in the dark because those elected by it doesn't trust the Assembly. Assembly kept in the dark so all it does is rubberstamp whatever the Cabinet puts in front of it. 

It is perhaps a bit of oversimplification, but I believe in this bodies right to be informed so that it can act in the best interest of the region as a whole.