Accepting an MBE?

I see the Corrs got honourary MBEs. I presume this makes them the first Louth Catholics to accept this gesture.

A nice bowl of soup might have been more appropriate, put some meat on those bones...

Either way, would you accept such an award, or would you tell them to stuff it because (i) it's a British 'thing' or (ii) it's a Monarchy 'thing'?

NineMoons

Stuff it. Politely. Both reasons.

seamus

Of course I'd accept it, it's an award from another country, recognising your contribution. It's an accolade of yours, not of the country presenting it to you.

Of course, if it was a knightship, I'd do it properly and ask Bertie's permission first

simu

I wouldn't for both reasons. Plus award ceremonies make me cringe.

Pigman II

I'd only accept an OBE or higher.

Agent Smith

my father would Kill me.

Nuttzz

cant see how (in the case of the corrs anyway) it is much different that the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, would people here turn that down because it was a "french thing"?

Jimmy_Jazz

I wouldn't, mainly because of the second thing. And a little bit of the first, thanks to the completely unjustified contempt that's been pre-programmed into my very being.

whiskeyman

If I did something that would get such recognition from a country... of course!
Would look snazzy on my CV too...

mike65

If a friendly democratic foriegn government sees fit to bestow an honour it would be churlish not to accept it. Anything else is just Brit bashing (in this case).

Mike.

Snickers Man

I believe the version they got was an 'honorary' one which applies to non-British subjects as opposed to the full-fat British one.

So I couldn't object to that.

It's a bit like Geldof's honorary KCBE. He's strictly not allowed to be called Sir Robert because he retains Irish citizenship despite the fact that he's lived in Britain for nearly 30 years and therefore does not have the full entitlement.

What gets my goat is the likes of Sir Anthony O'Reilly who changes his nationality to suit his business interests presenting himself as the face of modern Irish business and still claiming the full knighthood.

whiskeyman

Other honorary MBEs include:
Daniel O'Donnell (my Mammy would be so proud...)
Peter Schmeichal (I can see Man Utd fans changing their minds now..)
Frankie Dettori
Rita Gilligan (Irish woman who joined the Hard Rock Cafe as a waitress on its opening day, June 14 1971, and has remained with the organisation ever since).

abakan

sure is it not about tickets sales??

Besides them being from Dundalk - good republician town - you'd wonder why they accepted it

i dont think i would accept it, its a brittish thing and it looks like they still have some kind of hold over people

Pigman II

whiskeyman wrote:

Other honorary MBEs include:
Daniel O'Donnell (my Mammy would be so proud...)
Peter Schmeichal (I can see Man Utd fans changing their minds now..)
Frankie Dettori
Rita Gilligan (Irish woman who joined the Hard Rock Cafe as a waitress on its opening day, June 14 1971, and has remained with the organisation ever since).

What did Schmiechel do to make ManU fans dislike him (or am I misreading that)?

cal29

No

Not because it is British but because of what the letters stand for

Member of the British Empire an empire that enslaved and murdered millions of people around the world

The Corrs should be ashamed of themselves

pickarooney

If an MBE is an honour, what's an honorary MBE?

I presume this makes them the first Louth Catholics to accept this gesture.

Hasn't boards.ie got an embee from Louth?

KieranusTyranus

I am fed up wit the west brits that post on this site. I would refuse to accept anything from a country which killed millions of people around the world and is also a monarchy.
Ive said it before and ill say it again. What England did to Ireland was far worse than what Hitler did to the Jews.

pickarooney

Not even the prize money if you won the UK lottery?

Dar

KieranusTyranus wrote:

What England did to Ireland

Did. Past tense. More than a hundred years in the past tense. Get over it.

simu

whiskeyman wrote:

Rita Gilligan (Irish woman who joined the Hard Rock Cafe as a waitress on its opening day, June 14 1971, and has remained with the organisation ever since).

It's true! I'm underwhelmed!

limerick_man

It just means that you've made a great contribution to the UK! If you've already done it accept the honor, cause thats what it is ... an honour!

Many Irish people have been given honours from other countries other than Ireland, sure Bill Clinton has freedom of Limerick City, I'm sure the public in america didnt say he shouldn't have accepted it!

Congrats to the Corrs

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

mike65

ziggy67 wrote:

What exactly is democratic about a monarchy Mike?

I'm a scot & i can't understand why anyone would accept one of these trinkets from people who's position is given to them just because they are born into a certain family.
In this day and age i honestly can't comprehend why anyone bows down to these parasites.

I think you'll discover that the UK is subject to rule by government which is formed by the majority party in a free vote of universal sufferage. The role of the constitutional monarchy is minimal, as in rubber stamping the elected govenment. I would'nt feel to oppressed if I were you.

Mike.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would not accept anything that has imperialistic tones to it or associated with the parasites that inhabit a free dwelling in London (and other places)

ratboy

could you accept anything associated with grossly unfair pile of **** that is the fact that you can be as rich as that just by having good genes, Keith Richards was right.

billy the squid

I would accept it. and congratulations to the Corrs for receiving it. It is nice to see Irish people receiving recognition for their charitable works.

Objecting to it because it comes from britain in this day and age is nothing short of bigotry.

Does it come with a cash prize?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ziggy67

ziggy67 wrote:

I could well be wrong but i thought the UK was subject to rule by "her majesty". The Government is "her majestys Government" not the "Peoples Government".
But that is just semantics, i think you know what i meant in my post- that the monarchy is unelected- therefore, IMO anyway, the UK can't really be considered a democracy.

And thanks for your concern about my oppression but since i'm no longer paying taxes to that shower of inbred freeloaders i feel much better. Thanks

Define democracy.

The Corinthian

Conor74 wrote:

Either way, would you accept such an award, or would you tell them to stuff it because (i) it's a British 'thing' or (ii) it's a Monarchy 'thing'?

The Irish can’t really get past the British monarchy thing. Other nations have monarchies, but it’s not really what we think of when we hear the term. Most Irish don’t even seem to realize that other countries have knighthoods, even republics. As a result we don’t have a similar system here in Ireland of honouring citizens who have contributed to Society or the State (well, we have Freedom of the City :rolleyes: ). In fact, I think we may be the only nation in Europe that does not.

Part of this is because anything that hints at monarchy will automatically remind us of the British monarchy, but ultimately it’s because if we do have a tradition of rewarding people for successes, that tradition is begrudgery.

There’s something to feel patriotic about.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

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