Accepting an MBE?

oscarBravo

The Corinthian wrote:

The Irish can’t really get past the British monarchy thing.

Oh believe me, most of us can. It's hard to notice us behind the noisy minority singing "A Nation Once Again" at the top of their voices, but we're here, and we're capable of distinguishing a constitutional monarchy from a despotic empire.

Laguna

I (as an English person) wouldn't accept any award or commendation from the Queen (such as an OBE, MBE, Knighthood etc.) as I don't believe in the concept of Monarchy, as in a group of people who are deemed better than you from your birth. I don't rate the Monarchy, so I don't rate any title they wish to bestow on people.

geraghd

ziggy67 wrote:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy.

How the UK measures up:

1.Has this with the House of Commons. Government still has to be accepted by Liz though.Only she can open/dissolve Parliment, and nobody voted for her.

The House of Lords is unelected though, no democracy here.

2.Yes

3.Yes, so far as the House of Commons goes, no with House of Lords, at least until the Parliment Act is invoked.

4.Hmm, tricky one with 1st-past -the-post system. Last election Labour got 355 of 646 seats- a clear majority.Source http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/election-data/index.cfm?epage=s. However they only obtained 35.19% of vote, not a majority. Source http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/partycand.htm

5.How can you have social equality when you have a monarchy, lordships etc.
Two children born at the same time could have entirely different lives- one the 1st born son of a monarch, the other Jim and Marys son from Essex. Are they socially equal? Are they hell.

So what do you conclude from this then?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

ziggy67 wrote:

Well it could be argued either way but IMO the fact that the unelected (and considered to be above the law. Socially equal?) monarch could chose not to open Parliment with Government X & can dissolve Parliment as she sees fit (both highly unlikely) added to the fact that the unelected House of Lords is there would lead me to come to the conclusion that the UK is undemocratic.

It is subjective though.

If by subjective you mean complete tripe, then you'd be correct.

What you described does not actually exist. To begin with, the monarch has not been absolute in England since 1215 when the Magna Carta was introduced.

Additionally, the British monarch cannot in practice dismiss a government. Of course, in theory it is her ‘Royal Prerogative’, but in practice it has long been accepted that this can and would be overruled by the elected government:

"It is long established law that Parliament can override and displace the prerogative by statute" [1]

As for the House of Lords being unelected, that’s hardly unusual - many of the upper houses in democracies are unelected, with our own Seanad being either composed of appointees or elected from internal panels, such as the NUI.

Finally, with regard to their use of the ‘first past the post’ system, so what? We may consider it less democratic than proportional representation, but it’s really quite relative when discussing democracy. After all, how democratic is forcing our elected representatives to vote according to party lines and against the interests of their constituents? How democratic is it to have representatives - surely in this day and age we should be able to vote directly?

Seriously, it’s not every day I read such utter uneducated rubbish as you’ve spouted off. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they should be brought to task when those opinions simply sound like misinformed justifications for their own prejudices.

Zombrex

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Ive said it before and ill say it again. What England did to Ireland was far worse than what Hitler did to the Jews.

So does that mean you wouldn't accept an award from the German government ... or the French government, or the Italian government .. the Dutch government, the Japanise government, the American government ... the Brazilan government, the Canadan government, the Israeli government, the Greek government, the Spanish government, the Russian government ...

few!, this could take a while ...

Zombrex

ziggy67 wrote:

Well it could be argued either way but IMO the fact that the unelected (and considered to be above the law. Socially equal?) monarch could chose not to open Parliment with Government X & can dissolve Parliment as she sees fit (both highly unlikely) added to the fact that the unelected House of Lords is there would lead me to come to the conclusion that the UK is undemocratic.

Not really ...

For a start the King or Queen isn't above the law, hasn't been since the Magna Carta. Also the Queen is really nothing more than a figure head. She has about the same powers as our President. She has no real control over the government or the people.

A far better argument would be that the fact that the UK system is first past the post electon system and that there exists only 2 main parties .. but that still doesn't make it undemocratic, just not very representative.

Unshelved

Originally Posted by KieranusTyranus
Ive said it before and ill say it again. What England did to Ireland was far worse than what Hitler did to the Jews.

Yep that's right - they rounded us up from the ghettoes the made us live in, put us in trains to concentration camps, worked us to death, performed hideous medical experiments on us, gassed us in our millions and virtually wiped out our populations in Europe.

Oh wait - that didn't happen.

Waah! Why can't we be the most oppressed people ever? Then we'd have a reason for the chippy self-pity that we seem to revel in.

Opinions like yours, KieranusTyranus, are ridiculously misinformed and make you look like an idiot (which I'm sure you're not - are you?). Any chance of using that brain of yours before posting another idiotic comment like that?

IronMan

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Ive said it before and ill say it again. What England did to Ireland was far worse than what Hitler did to the Jews.

Oh dear Jesus,

In 5 years of reading large sections of this site, this must be the most ill-informed, and potentially insulting comment I have ever seen posted. Such ignorance is laughable. Turn off your Wolfe Tones CD young man, it's corrupting your mind.

Lemming

The more I read of this thread, the more I realise that the quote (paraphrased I know):

"Most people have nationalities, the Irish and the Jews have a complex"

is unfortunately rather accurate.

My f*cking god people, how long does it take us to grow up and stop navel gazing into the past. How about looking forward for once? Perhaps see where you're stepping? Might help? :rolleyes:

KieranusTyranus

KieranusTyranus wrote:

I am fed up wit the west brits that post on this site.

If I see one more insult on this board towards posters you disagree with, your posting priviliges will be removed.

Zebra3

Why would anyone want to accept an award that make them a Member of the British Empire? :rolleyes:

Be associated with concentration camps, genocide, and blood-thirsty warmongers. Why do the British still even use a phrase like that? I know a lot of British people who find this sort of stuff very offensive and embarrassing in this day and age.

Zombrex

Zebra3 wrote:

Why would anyone want to accept an award that make them a Member of the British Empire? :rolleyes:

I think people are focusing a bit too much on the name of the award.

Would someone reject the Purple Heart cause it is anotomically incorrect (ie, "hearts are red dumbass")

Zebra3

Wicknight wrote:

I think people are focusing a bit too much on the name of the award.

Would someone reject the Purple Heart cause it is anotomically incorrect (ie, "hearts are red dumbass")

Well if the Germans were giving out MTR awards, there would be uproar.

gandalf

Another thread of farce, closed.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

Seriously, it’s not every day I read such utter uneducated rubbish as you’ve spouted off. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, but they should be brought to task when those opinions simply sound like misinformed justifications for their own prejudices.

Carefull TC
It's not for posters to comment on the level of education that other posters should have.Thats entirely up to them.Their education may even be entirely adequate or better than you or I, its just that in your opinion or someone elses, it may not be as informed as you would like.
And thats as far as the charter here allows us to make comments involving the poster.

Edit Morning Gandalf, I see you got in there before me!! thats what happens when you follow a link from a reported post and by default can post in closed threads