Only countries in Europe should be part of eurovision

Scroll to see replies

Yeah, I mean, they've only been in it 40 times and won it on 4 occasions... But let's all get angry this year.

Eurovision has turned into a freak show.

If the UK wanted to win all we need do is find a midget with an underdog attitude. @UWS should walk it. lol.

Reply 22

Dez

So basically you want to ban Israel from a thing you don't even watch or participate in at all just to make a point? How very spiteful of you.

Reply 23

Dez

So basically just make the contest less diverse, less cultural and more homogenous for no good reason except for misguided political dogma? No thanks. :hand:

Reply 24

Drewski

Yes, and the "Eurovision" part refers to the European Broadcast Union, which has 100+ members in 70+ countries.

It is not about a geographical area.

Reply 25

Dez

Oh right, so it's not about politics, you just want to make the world a duller place because of a semantic technicality. :sigh:

If bureaucrats ruled the world…

Reply 26

markovchain17

Original post by Drewski

Yes, and the "Eurovision" part refers to the European Broadcast Union, which has 100+ members in 70+ countries.

It is not about a geographical area.

It kind of is when only EBU members from Europe i.e. not associate members are allowed to participate in Eurovision (ofc until 2015 when Australia were allowed as "guests")

Reply 27

Dez

And yet here you are, raining on the parade. Can't you go be grumpy and miserable about something else?

Reply 28

Bnaca

Original post by Drewski

It didn't.

We were getting nul points way before Brexit. We came last in '03, '08 and '10, getting 0 points in '03. Last year we came 15th, despite it being the one straight after the Brexit vote. So to correlate it directly with that is actually naivety on your part.

Then explain why Britain did so badly this year, when the performance was better than a lot. Are you saying that it's completely down to personal taste?

Reply 29

Drewski

Original post by Bnaca

Then explain why Britain did so badly this year, when the performance was better than a lot. Are you saying that it's completely down to personal taste?

In your opinion it was.

It actually came higher in the televoting than it did in the critics' jury.

Completely? No. But to suggest it was down to Brexit is based on no evidence whatsoever. You can't back that up.

Reply 30

Bnaca

Original post by Drewski

I don't need evidence. You're entitled to believe that Brexit had nothing to do with it. Just as I am entitled to believe that it did.

Reply 31

Drewski

Original post by Bnaca

I don't need evidence. You're entitled to believe that Brexit had nothing to do with it. Just as I am entitled to believe that it did.

So explain how last year, in the contest immediately after the vote, we came 15th.

You're entitled to believe what you want, sure. But you're not entitled to have that belief go unquestioned when it defies logic and evidence.

Reply 32

Ikeo

Original post by Drewski

The brexit vote was over a year ago?

Reply 33

Drewski

Original post by Ikeo

The brexit vote was over a year ago?

Yes, that's my point.

Brexit vote 2016 - "Europe hates us"
Eurovision 2017 - we finish 15th
Eurovision 2018 - we finish 23rd (or whatever it is) - "oh, it's because Europe doesn't like us because of brexit"

Doesn't follow.

Reply 34

Dez

Original post by Ikeo

The brexit vote was over a year ago?

The vote was June 2016, Eurovision is held in May.

Reply 35

El Salvador

Original post by TheMcSame

How about... You know... The actual continent of Europe, and the regions owned by the countries within?

The boundary of Europe has not been the same, because Europe is not a real continent. People didn't always consider Russia a part of Europe, and some people still argue over whether the Caucasus region is. And then there's the issue of whether the islands are attached to Europe or to Africa, Asia, or North America. The National Geographic, for example, places Cyprus (and by extension, Northern Cyprus) in Asia, instead of Europe. It's really not as clear-cut as you think it is.

And if you're going by the most widely accepted political boundaries of Europe, then how about the European citizens who are not actually from or living in Europe? UK, France, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc all have territories not in Europe.

Ultimately, it's a television show, and so the definition should reasonably be related to television rights and so forth, not what you personally consider to be a part of Europe.

Reply 36

El Salvador

"Euro" refers to the "European Broadcasting Network", not necessarily "Europe".

Reply 37

ebullienceness

Original post by TaintedLight

title

Because Eurovision is about unity and the sharing of culture. It was set up in war-torn Europe and we need to remember that.

Reply 38

TheMcSame

Original post by The Champion.m4a

The boundary of Europe has not been the same, because Europe is not a real continent.

I get what you're saying, but Europe is certainly a continent. The only difference here is that it's not completely established through land, but it's more of a political border.

People didn't always consider Russia a part of Europe,

Again, this is more of a political matter and a problem with the overall size of the country it self. Looking at things like population distribution and the capital city (~77% of the Russian population live in the west of Russia), there's reasonable ground to say that the Russian population is largely European.

and some people still argue over whether the Caucasus region is. And then there's the issue of whether the islands are attached to Europe or to Africa, Asia, or North America. The National Geographic, for example, places Cyprus (and by extension, Northern Cyprus) in Asia, instead of Europe. It's really not as clear-cut as you think it is.

I'm not saying it's completely clear cut, of course you're always going to have a few issues here and there because we're dealing with political borders. But there are plenty of clear cut situations where you can say X country definitely isn't in Europe.

And if you're going by the most widely accepted political boundaries of Europe, then how about the European citizens who are not actually from or living in Europe? UK, France, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc all have territories not in Europe.

If you actually cared to read more than the first few words of my post you would've noticed "and the regions owned by the countries within"

Ultimately, it's a television show, and so the definition should reasonably be related to television rights and so forth, not what you personally consider to be a part of Europe.

I never said it should, in fact I've already stated in this thread that it doesn't really matter.

Reply 39

El Salvador

Original post by TheMcSame

I get what you're saying, but Europe is certainly a continent. The only difference here is that it's not completely established through land, but it's more of a political border.

Hence I used the term "political boundary".

Europe does not fit the definition of a "continent" with the except that most people call it one. I cannot see how that makes it "certainly" a continent.

Original post by TheMcSame

That is irrelevant. The point was that the political boundary of Europe used to be drawn right at the Russian border so the entirety of Russia would not be considered a part of Europe.

And culturally speaking, Russia was also much less European until His Imperial Majesty Emperor Peter the Great, Tsar of All Russias made it so, and of course with gradual reinforcements such as ones from Her Imperial Majesty Empress Catherine the Great, Tsar of All Russias.

Not to mention if you go to today's Russia, you'll realize that outside of St Petersburg, Russia does not resemble much of the rest of Europe.

Original post by TheMcSame

You can certainly exclude Australia from Europe, but even Israel is a bit debatable. I'm not sure Europeans saw it as foreign back when it was known as The Holy Land.

But the point wasn't necessarily about whether Australia or Israel or Morocco should be allowed to join, but rather the fact that if you start limiting it by saying only countries "in Europe" are allowed to join, you will run into problems when people argue, using modern understanding of where Europe is, whether Cyprus or Armenia should be disqualified.

This suggests that the eligibility criterion is bad, when there are multiple cases of ambiguity.

Original post by TheMcSame

If you actually cared to read more than the first few words of my post you would've noticed "and the regions owned by the countries within"

Perhaps if you read my comment carefully, you will realize that I was attacking also your logical inconsistency with that - if Eurovision is with strictly European countries only, there isn't a logical reason why at the same time Switzerland would be able to sponsor someone like Céline Dion or for the UK to send someone from the Cayman Islands or for Russia to nominate someone from its Far East.

Although I guess it would be a little bit more logically consistent if you don't think at Eurovision, the people matter but only the countries themselves.

And actually, even whether an area is owned by a certain country is uncertain. I'm not even talking about something like whether Crimea is a part of Ukraine, but things like if Curacao, a "country" under The Kingdom of The Netherlands, but not The Netherlands itself, should be considered a part of the European country of The Netherlands.