The following amendment shall be made to The Standing Orders of the Magisterium, Section V.
…5.2. The Foreign Policy Committee is established as a meeting of the Magisterium to discuss matters of treaty and war, and it shall meet in closed session.
…5.2.1. The Foreign Policy Committee will be chaired by the Provost.
…5.2.2. The Delegate and any minister(s) they designate will be members of the committee without voting privileges.
…5.2.3. The Delegate or the Provost may initiate a meeting of the committee to discuss treaty negotiations or declarations of war without a vote.
…5.2.4. The Provost shall publicly announce the opening and closure of each such meeting, including the general subject of the meeting.
…5.2.5. The Magisterium may not ratify a treaty or declaration of war in a closed session.
…5.3. Votes on Closed Session discussions shall be public, including the full text of the motion being voted upon.
Here’s my question: What’s the point of meeting in Closed Session if the topic of discussion is fully public? What if we want to consider an option with the Magisterium without committing? Announcing what we plan to discuss and not following through can only be seen negatively by outside forces. Especially if that’s a declaration of war. Furthermore, I see no reason to allow closed session votes be private UNLESS they’re treaties or declarations. All or none. This feels like a common sense amendment to me.
Citizens cannot be kept completely in the dark about Magisterium discussions. If no vote is held, Citizens do not know what was discussed at all. It is a matter of transparency. If the matter is sensitive, the topic can be disclosed more generally. A specific treaty discussion can be generalised to “a discussion was held on the status of a treaty” or “a discussion was held on Foreign Affairs matters”.
I feel like what you describe goes against the spirit of the clause. If the question came to me, I would define “general subject” as at least describing whether it was a treaty or declaration of war and who it was with. Now, our current court may rule differently, but I don’t think using loopholes is preferable to removing the clause altogether. Also, why would the citizens need to know a discussion was held if there was never the chance of it doing anything? Why should we be required to disclose everything Cabinet thinks about doing? That seems overkill.
I’d also note that a “closed session” is designed precisely to keep the citizens in the dark. We know that when we vote to initiate it, and we know that when it initiates automatically per the FA committee.
I’d further argue that, if the subject of the closed session is public, there’s no secrecy or privacy. The session is closed only in name. The elements of it that are really important are (1) the subject, (2) the content, (3) the reasons, and (4) the positions of individuals.
1 is revealed from the start per this. 2 is revealed from the start in a repeal. 2 and 4 are revealed during a vote. If no vote is held, 4 is pretty obvious anyway since we didn’t even need to vote to decide not to follow through. The only thing really kept private in closed sessions is 3 - reasons. Which we’d probably publish when we do the thing. I mean - treaty, the reason is we like them and want closer relations. Repeal, the reason is because they broke our trust in some way or their region is dying. War, well, if we don’t put out a statement when we declare it, then we’re already losing the war.
The only reason I can think of to have a closed session is because we don’t want anyone to know what we’re talking about. If we say it from the start, it invites all sorts of problems. And let’s say it’s a treaty repeal or declaration of war – if we decide not to go through with it, we’ve made an enemy anyway, and, in the case of the latter, likely earned a reputation for weakness. Why do we want to damage our reputation and show our hand too early? If we’re okay with that, why even have closed sessions?
What I describe is what the text states and intends to state: the general idea of what was discussed should be released. This is not a loophole but is following the requirement with the leeway it grants.
Releasing the general idea of what was discussed in a closed session is important for transparency. We can keep it general if it is useful but abolishing it altogether I am against. Citizens need to know what was discussed privately by the legislature. FA in particular is already opaque to most Citizens. Making it more opaque is not something I support.