Sounds like you are for a World Govt???????
You didn't read between the lines, Goober.
That depends on whether such a law pushes parties to withdraw membership from various organizations in response, or whether they choose to remain members but abide by its rules.
Let's look at personal membership. Goober, have you yourself voluntarily joined an organization the rules of which you disagreed with? And the organizations you did choose to join of your own free will, did you not also choose, as a matter of principle, to either abide by its rules or, once finding out that you disagreed with its rules, withdrew your membership?
Why should it be any different for a government? If the government disagrees with the resolutions passed by this or that organization, then why is it still a member? For the photo op? I so, that's a very expensive photo op.
Personally, I believe such a law would likely push politicians to make some hard choices, resulting in the government withdrawing its membership from many organizations.
To go back to your original premise, I think it would result in partisanship dictating which groups we join or withdraw from. ALL the parties would do it.
Hmmm... you do have a point here. It could risk Canada joining and leaving organizations every four years. Now of course we can't deny at least it would make Canada predictable in the sense that as long as it's a member of this or that organization, it would also abide by its rules. That would be a positive, seeing that any predictability and consistency is good. However, you do have a point that then Canada might be joining and leaving organizations like a yoyo every four years.
That said, even this could have advantages in that if Canada did it enough times, eventually other organizations would eventually refuse Canada's application into their organization owing to Canada never being able to make up its mind. Besides, if Canadians can't get behind an organization enough to be consistent members of that organization, then it's probably better that it refuse our application to join anyway.
This would likely mean that except for those international organizations that a clear and consistent majority of Canadians and Canadian politicians support, other organizations would eventually give us an ultimatum that if we leave again, we won't be welcome back in.
But like I said, if we're not that committed to that organization anyway, it would be all for the better.
But that would mean we would join and depart from these organizations whenever we changed gov'ts because the Tories and Grits both have opposing views on what the long term direction of the country should be and thus the organizations we participate in. This could also potentially be damaging to our international reputation and credibility, sort of like a sports free agent who is constantly stating they want their contract renegotiated or to be traded. Other countries would only take so much of that kind of action before we became somewhat of a pariah.
Hmmm... looks like I should have read this before answering the paragraph above. Anyway, how do we define credibility? Is it credible to be a member of an organization but then not adhere to its resolutions? Looking at it that way, we would just be more honest about our commitment. Yes, eventually these organizations would kick us out, and all the better. The only organizations we'd be members of then would be those that it would seem a clear and consistent majority of MPs support election after election.
In the short term, yes, it might make Canada look ridiculous. In the long term though, whatever organizations we are still members of by then (assuming there are any) would trust fully in our commitment to them, which in turn would give us more sway in those organizations owing to the trust we'd have gained from them.
I also think you misunderstand how the G7 or G20 operate as well: the representatives meet and discuss issues and how they would like to see them dealt with. They do make cursory commitments at times but usually only after extensive negotiation. They're not into making binding resolutions on their membership (not to mention without making sure everyone is on board). Its also not an "everyone can join" group like the UN but an exclusive one,based on economic strength (which has its pros and cons as well).
Exactly what I was saying. Since the G7 and G20 do not pass resolutions to begin with, Canada could safely remain a member if the proposal in the OP were passed, since it would never have to worry about a resolution it would disagree with. Again, it would make Canada a more reliable partner in the world since any organization we're a member of would no we're either fully on board or we're out, none of this billion-dollar photo op BS.
Another way I could see a political party getting around the law would be to apply not for membership, but rather observer status. By not being a full-fledged member, it would not get any voting rights of course, but would still at least be kept abreast of what's going on in the organization.
Besides, if we're not going to abide by resolutions either way, then what should we care whether a resolution passes of fails? At least it would show us honest. By simply associating with an organization but not actually being a member, we would thus be free to collaborate with it as we see fit, the the degree we wish, without appearing hypocritical in any way.
