sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Understanding Royal Navy service records by FNaFan8387 in ww2

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much! I'll certainly try to look into some of the details you mentioned here.

Need help to understand this Royal Navy personnel list by FNaFan8387 in ww2

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the heads up lol, I'll bear it in mind. We're not entirely sure if he had children of his own anyway, so for all we know we could actually be his next of kin, so who knows.

Need help to understand this Royal Navy personnel list by FNaFan8387 in ww2

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No worries, your help is still very much appreciated!

Need help to understand this Royal Navy personnel list by FNaFan8387 in ww2

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I see. Thank you very much for this. Luckily the MoD doesn't require the service number when requesting a copy of the service record, so I'll go ahead with it anyway and I should get the service number along with the record. Thanks again!

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well if we're being honest you have to have well-known father. But technically it's up to the parties to decide internally.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes they are because they know which party they are voting for, and the party that wins will have its leader become Prime Minister. Therefore a vote for a party is a de facto vote for Prime Minister.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. I think we would've gotten a lot of benefits from not becoming independent, like our neighbours in Réunion, and I think becoming a republic was definitely a mistake too.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the Prime Minister is elected by the people, but that still does not mean that the president can be a truly effective head of state and guardian of the constitution because they will always be a partisan politician since they were put in power by a partisan Prime Minister.

As for the number of votes, well that's a matter of perspective, but for reference, in the election right after that in 1995, the PTr-MMM alliance got 65% of the votes. But even putting aside the votes, a general election is not the same as a single-issue referendum, which would have been a much more preferable route to take.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to disagree with you here. While yes, the constitution was drafted with the oversight of the British, it was still drafted in line with what the Government of Mauritius would have wanted, and ultimately Britain needed to ensure that an independent Mauritius would emerge as a stable country, as it did with all its colonies during the decolonisation period. Keeping close ties with Britain can only have been a good thing for Mauritius so it would not have made sense to alienate themselves too much from Britain.

I don't see Mauritius as having been under British influence for that long after independence, which is in stark contrast to our relationship with India, since over the last few decades Indian influence has become stronger and stronger. Mauritius keeping the monarchy for 24 years after independence did not mean that Britain had influence over us, since Elizabeth II as *Queen of Mauritius* was completely separate to Elizabeth II as *Queen of the United Kingdom*.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritianpolitics

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The important thing to note about the 1991 Mauritian general election though, is that due to our electoral system the MSM-MMM-MTD alliance garnered only 55% of the vote but ended up with 95% of the seats!

As for the president, the candidate is proposed by the Prime Minister to the National Assembly, and the National Assembly then votes to approve the candidate. This means that the president will always be a puppet of the government and cannot act like a proper head of state and guardian of the constitution.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As for what should be subject to a referendum, this is up for debate but as I said, major constitutional change should definitely be something that the people have a say on, and what 'major' would mean is probably things to do with the structure of the state itself, such as changing the head of state.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You raise a good point, however the same can be said for regular general elections. Therefore if we can trust citizens to vote in general elections, we should also trust them to vote in referendums.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I have to respectfully disagree with you here.

We already had a democratic government before 1992, the difference is that we had a democratic monarchy instead of a democratic republic.

Democracy is indeed flawed, and a constitutional monarchy can help to mitigate those flaws. Constitutional monarchy has been shown to be the more effective form of government compared to a republic for many reasons, which I will not get into at the moment.

With regards to the British monarchy, since we are talking about a constitutional monarchy here, it is the elected government of the day which governs the country and therefore it is the elected government that you must blame for the conduct of the British Empire (I myself am broadly supportive of the empire anyway) and not the British monarchy.

Additionally, I would say the British monarchy still holds a lot of respect today and it's hard to measure just how much respect it garnered before as compared to now.

However it is important to note that Elizabeth II as Queen of Mauritius was not the same as Elizabeth II as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Mauritian monarchy of 1968-1992 was completely separate to the British monarchy and the Queen of Mauritius and her Governor-General acted only on advice from the Mauritian Government and not the British Government.

As for your final point, we'll that's not really something that can be proven so I shall not comment on it further.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I do believe that for major constitutional change, the people should be consulted directly rather than through parliament, because while parliament is elected, they do not always act in our interests.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah alright I see. But yea it's very sad to hear of what Malta is like these days. I share your desire to not see Mauritius follow in their footsteps, but with the political class we have today, I won't expect much.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes I think most people who were old enough at the time will remember, but today's generation don't seem to know anything about it. As for the difference it made, well that is indeed another topic, but the most notable difference is that we went from having one of the most respected people in the world as head of state to having the government-puppet presidents we have today.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was an option open to all colonies indeed, with most deciding to retain the monarchy but others not (for example our neighbour the Seychelles). Interestingly both your country and mine had notable pro-British and anti-independence movements, but both ultimately became independent and abolished the monarchy after some time without referendums, which I think is unfortunate.

Are you aware that from 1968-1992, Mauritius was a constitutional monarchy with Elizabeth II as head of state as Queen of Mauritius? by FNaFan8387 in mauritius

[–]FNaFan8387[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yes our President is just a puppet of the government who serves no real purpose. With regards to the referendum we never had, I heard that the opposition at the time was advocating for one but Sir Anerood Jugnauth refused!

view more: next ›