Countries of 2016

[Chorizo]

Being "next to Europe" means little to me, the Islamic State is also next to Europe... but anyway turns out I got that one wrong as EscGeek points out, though I was sure that they participated before joining, but anyway.

Canada participated in Eurovision Young Dancers. The precedence was set for such participation in a Eurovision contest.

Latin America is very unlike Spain and Portugal these days. There are linguistic connections, but that is as far as it goes. Brazil's similarity to Portugal is about the same as Jamaica's to Britain - and I'm hardly advocating Jamaica joining ESC. Whereas Anglophone Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand are very similar and in many ways identical to Britain and Ireland, and Quebec the same for France. Their native populations and cultures are largely extinct, and they now have population and/or cultural base of England and France. Armenia gets through from being a Russian offshoot, why shouldn't the offshoots of Western European join?

Being as similar as possible to the UK, France or any other European country shouldn't be a reason to be eligible to participate. If you are okay with former British colonies participating, Latin America should be fine too. The reach of the European Broadcasting Area shows that it is not just about European culture or being geographically located in Europe. It might just have been intended to include Israel and the French colonies in northern Africa (at that time) but since northern Africa and the Middle East are eligible to participate, arguing against Latin America because of a perceived lack of cultural proximity doesn't make any sense.

If you argue based on geography, North America and Australia are out too. If you argue based on culture, we could also include all countries that are culturally similar to Egypt, for example, since Egypt is in the EBA. So why not Yemen, Sudan or Pakistan? Countries like Syria and Iraq are in the EBA anyway. We could include the whole Muslim world, I suppose. What about all of the former USSR? They all have ties to Russia. Why not Uzbekistan?

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

Being as similar as possible to the UK, France or any other European country shouldn't be a reason to be eligible to participate. If you are okay with former British colonies participating, Latin America should be fine too. The reach of the European Broadcasting Area shows that it is not just about European culture or being geographically located in Europe. It might just have been intended to include Israel and the French colonies in northern Africa (at that time) but since northern Africa and the Middle East are eligible to participate, arguing against Latin America because of a perceived lack of cultural proximity doesn't make any sense.

If you argue based on geography, North America and Australia are out too. If you argue based on culture, we could also include all countries that are culturally similar to Egypt, for example, since Egypt is in the EBA. So why not Yemen, Sudan or Pakistan? Countries like Syria and Iraq are in the EBA anyway. We could include the whole Muslim world, I suppose. What about all of the former USSR? They all have ties to Russia. Why not Uzbekistan?

I'm guessing you didn't read any of the following posts...

If Egypt is in the EBU, I don't object to it joining. I would rather these non-European countries didn't, but there isn't any legitimate reason for me to object.

 

[Chorizo]

I'm guessing you didn't read any of the following posts...

If Egypt is in the EBU, I don't object to it joining. I would rather these non-European countries didn't, but there isn't any legitimate reason for me to object.

My point is not you objecting to Egypt's membership in the EBU. My point is that if you think that countries that are culturally close to current EBU members should be allowed to participate (e.g. Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA because of the UK), you have to apply this to all EBU members, including Egypt, for example. Therefore, with all of northern Africa and countries like Syria and Iraq being part of the EBA (although the latter two aren't part of the EBU at the moment), you would also have to be okay with countries like Yemen, Oman, Afghanistan etc. joining because of cultural ties to existing members.

In this case, claiming that Latin America is too different doesn't make any sense. If Argentina and a few other Latin American countries could join because they are similar enough to Spain, why wouldn't other Latin American countries be able to join due to their cultural ties to the Latin American countries that would have already joined?

Letting in countries with British ties but not others seems too arbitrary and the same applies to any new rule that would allow certain countries outside the EBA/EBU to join. If Australia stays, it's because of the money they are willing to contribute. The official reason given will be their dedication to the contest for so many years and the success this year. That's it.

 

[Chorizo]

I for one wouldn't mind Australia participating again but I can understand why others are strictly against it.

I like the idea of one international guest country every year. These countries would be invited as special guests like Australia this year and after a few years they might be able to return. Australia participating this year was a success. If Australia were able to participate every year from now on, however, it would soon become ordinary for Australian viewers and Europeans alike. Having a different guest country every year would provide something new and interesting for the European audiences and for the respective guest country every year. It would allow countries from other parts of the world to participate while keeping the contest European.

It depends on how many countries would even be interested to join. China and Australia are obviously interested. Next year, a Latin American country could participate, in 2017 it could be China, in 2018 an African country, and in 2019 NZ or Australia again and so forth. Countries could come back after a few years depending on how many countries would even want to participate and there should be regional diversity. If some countries show more interest in the contest, like Australia, these countries could fill the guest spot more often.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

My point is not you objecting to Egypt's membership in the EBU. My point is that if you think that countries that are culturally close to current EBU members should be allowed to participate (e.g. Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA because of the UK), you have to apply this to all EBU members, including Egypt, for example. Therefore, with all of northern Africa and countries like Syria and Iraq being part of the EBA (although the latter two aren't part of the EBU at the moment), you would also have to be okay with countries like Yemen, Oman, Afghanistan etc. joining because of cultural ties to existing members.

In this case, claiming that Latin America is too different doesn't make any sense. If Argentina and a few other Latin American countries could join because they are similar enough to Spain, why wouldn't other Latin American countries be able to join due to their cultural ties to the Latin American countries that would have already joined?

Letting in countries with British ties but not others seems too arbitrary and the same applies to any new rule that would allow certain countries outside the EBA/EBU to join. If Australia stays, it's because of the money they are willing to contribute. The official reason given will be their dedication to the contest for so many years and the success this year. That's it.

Okay I get you. Well tbf that is a decent point, although for myself I see the North African/Arab countries as being the 'extension' themselves, rather than being part of the heart of Europe.

A-lister I think it was pointed out that under the rules I'm advocating being implemented, Argentina would be legitimate participant. I looked that up for myself and he's right, and I think they would be a legitimate participant, along with Uruguay. Only they though, all other Latino countries are only 50% or less European population-wise, not the overwhelming majority you would need to make a legitimate argument for their participation, and their cultures are very detached from Europe and more specifically, Spain and Portugal.

Actually I advocate the accession of countries with British, French and Spanish ties, so it's nothing to do with that. As Australia are the only ones showing interest at the present time, obviously they are the only ones to be in question for the moment.

Basically, my view is that the rules on this issue should be, that a country may join if it is:
- Geographically part of the continent of Europe (eg United Kingdom)
or
- Geographically outside of Europe, but is part of the EBU Broadcasting Area (eg Israel)
or
- Geographically outside of Europe, but has overwhelming cultural connections with geographic Europe (eg Australia)

And of course it must be an EBU or EBU Associate member.

Those rules seem clear and consistent to me, and actually fit the reality of Eurovision in the last couple of decades a lot more than the old rules do.

-

I understand why people would object to a country on the other side of the world joining, but I think that a legitimate argument needs to be made if you're in favour of excluding them. So far I've only heard one from Chorizo (the fact that it may create inconsistencies in the application of the rules).

 

[Chorizo]

Okay I get you. Well tbf that is a decent point, although for myself I see the North African/Arab countries as being the 'extension' themselves, rather than being part of the heart of Europe.

A-lister I think it was pointed out that under the rules I'm advocating being implemented, Argentina would be legitimate participant. I looked that up for myself and he's right, and I think they would be a legitimate participant, along with Uruguay. Only they though, all other Latino countries are only 50% or less European population-wise, not the overwhelming majority you would need to make a legitimate argument for their participation, and their cultures are very detached from Europe and more specifically, Spain and Portugal.

Actually I advocate the accession of countries with British, French and Spanish ties, so it's nothing to do with that. As Australia are the only ones showing interest at the present time, obviously they are the only ones to be in question for the moment.

Basically, my view is that the rules on this issue should be, that a country may join if it is:
- Geographically part of the continent of Europe (eg United Kingdom)
or
- Geographically outside of Europe, but is part of the EBU Broadcasting Area (eg Israel)
or
- Geographically outside of Europe, but has overwhelming cultural connections with geographic Europe (eg Australia)

And of course it must be an EBU or EBU Associate member.

Those rules seem clear and consistent to me, and actually fit the reality of Eurovision in the last couple of decades a lot more than the old rules do.

-

I understand why people would object to a country on the other side of the world joining, but I think that a legitimate argument needs to be made if you're in favour of excluding them. So far I've only heard one from Chorizo (the fact that it may create inconsistencies in the application of the rules).

I think if one Latin American country were allowed to join permanently (e.g. Argentina), keeping out others like Brazil would be unlikely for financial and political reasons alone. If Argentina and Uruguay joined and Brazil wanted to participate too, I just don't see the EBU telling them that they aren't sufficiently European to join. I think if one Latin American country should ever become a permanent member, all of them would eventually be allowed to join. Brazil is a huge market, so adding them too makes absolute sense if you are willing to include Latin American countries. Telling the Peruvians that they have too many people of Inca descent to be allowed to join, isn't realistic either. I know this can be phrased differently, but letting only two Latin American countries join just wouldn't work in the real world.

I share your sentiment that Eurovision should be European at the core. Allowing some additional non-European countries participate is okay but there shouldn't be permanent members that have no connection to Europe or European culture apart from those that are already allowed to participate. As I said, I'm okay with the concept of international guest countries but I don't want countries like China as permanent members.

I also don't want the USA to join because that would destroy the European character of Eurovision. The USA is simply too big and influential when it comes to international pop culture. Adding a country like Australia with little influence and a small population is fine but the USA is just too much.

 

[SpZ]

Yesterday you preaching we should have more respect for people having different views, then you come up with this falsity?? I've explained why I believe they should join, and one minute you're accusing me of being "imperialist" for wanting the likes of NZ to keep ties with us, then when I want them to stand on their own and join an international contest independently instead of watching via BBC, you accuse me of being "imperialist" too! Make up your mind!!

One should respect that people have different opinions (and that it is normal), but that does not mean you opinion is in anyway protected from bashing if it is dumb. If you claim that Australia is more European than Armenia then yes, you seem to have a very weird idea about what is European (*hint* it is not the same as western European*). And I am all for NZ joining international contest independently whenever they actually do fulfill the criteria for joining them.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

One should respect that people have different opinions (and that it is normal), but that does not mean you opinion is in anyway protected from bashing if it is dumb. If you claim that Australia is more European than Armenia then yes, you seem to have a very weird idea about what is European (*hint* it is not the same as western European*). And I am all for NZ joining international contest independently whenever they actually do fulfill the criteria for joining them.

Please tell me in what ways Armenia is more "European" than Australia, other than it being closer to the geographic centre of Europe. Both are outside of Europe. Both are culturally European. It seems you (and others) have double standards here - if a country is of Eastern European origin you defend its right to participate, but somehow if you call for the participation of a country of Western European origin you are a dumb imperialist - EVEN THOUGH THAT COUNTRY HAS TAKEN PART BEFORE (!!!) You couldn't make it up lol.

And while I'm at it I'll say how much I hate that certain people who preach "cultural tolerance" are the chiefs of snobbishness against Anglo-American culture - if you didn't know we are part of Europe too, some people go on as if we (and Australia) are some sort of American plant ruining their beloved Contest...
If you're really worried about the take-over of Eurovision by Anglo-American stuff, you shouldn't be worried about the inclusion of Australia and a few other countries here and there. You should be looking at your own countries, and asking why they're choosing to send the stuff they do, why it is that when you look at the song stats for this year it says:
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
etc

That's not our problem, that's your problem that you can easily sort out.

 

[SpZ]

Please tell me in what ways Armenia is more "European" than Australia, other than it being closer to the geographic centre of Europe. Both are outside of Europe. Both are culturally European. It seems you (and others) have double standards here - if a country is of Eastern European origin you defend its right to participate, but somehow if you call for the participation of a country of Western European origin you are a dumb imperialist - EVEN THOUGH THAT COUNTRY HAS TAKEN PART BEFORE (!!!) You couldn't make it up lol.

1) As you probably should know, Europe is not a geographic term, but rather a constructed region. That is there is nothing geographically defining where Europe ends and Asia/Africa begins. There isn't even anything geographic there which confirms that Europe as a separate entity exists. If anyone wants to argue that Europe is a geographical entity that ends with the Caucasus mountains for example, should really explain me why does the Caucasus delimit Europe, but the Alps does not cut Italy away from Europe.

2) Therefor, there is no point at looking at the question from geographical point and one has to look at the construction of European region. There are in essence 2 main things that are relevant in constructions of regions (doing my masters thesis theoretical part in that so I have a fair idea about what I am talking about - although like everything in soft sciences there are other approaches to it as well) a) perception b) interconnectivity

3) If you look at perception, the easiest thing would be to ask who thinks Armenia/Australia is in Europe. I am fairly sure that most people in Armenia think that they are in Europe and around 0% of Australians think Australia is in Europe. Therefor, there is a wide gap in self identification. Now looking at what other members of the same region think is important as well. While I think that there are many people in other European countries who do think that Armenia is not located in Europe, I haven't met anyone in Europe yet who does believe that Australia is in Europe.

4) About interconnectivity. Armenia is obviously connected strongly to other European countries through different spheres of life. If you take politics for example, they are in the Eastern European UN regional group, they do take part in the Council of Europe and other European institutions, they even take part in European cultural events like the European Games or the Europeade festival (the largest festival of European folk culture). If you look at trade their top 3 export partners are Russia, Bulgaria and Belgium while import partners are Russia, China and Germany. Eg they do their everyday trade and business mainly with Europe. Australia on the other hand does not take part in European political framework, they do not really take part of European cultural events and their main trade partners are China/Japan/South Korea for export and China/USA/Japan for import. There are of course many different indicators you can chose to demonstrate interconnectivity. Australia doesn't really seem to have that strong connections to any other European states than UK (nor to common frameworks), certainly not enough to bring it into the European region.

5) I am not even going to compare which of them is more culturally "European" like you wanted because a) I am not an expert of comparative cultural studies b) As Armenia is in Europe, they are automatically 100% European. Australia while having European influences, is definitely not 100% European.

6) There is a difference between a country with Western European origin (Australia) and a country in Europe (Armenia). And like I said before the basis for having countries in ESC is the EBU broadcasting area not anything cultural. You are not imperialist if you call a country with Western European origin to participate in the contest, you are if you think that country (Australia) is more European than a country actually being part of Europe is.

And while I'm at it I'll say how much I hate that certain people who preach "cultural tolerance" are the chiefs of snobbishness against Anglo-American culture - if you didn't know we are part of Europe too, some people go on as if we (and Australia) are some sort of American plant ruining their beloved Contest...
If you're really worried about the take-over of Eurovision by Anglo-American stuff, you shouldn't be worried about the inclusion of Australia and a few other countries here and there. You should be looking at your own countries, and asking why they're choosing to send the stuff they do, why it is that when you look at the song stats for this year it says:
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
Language - English
etc

That's not our problem, that's your problem that you can easily sort out.

1) Frankly speaking I find these kind of changes of topic to be somewhat confusing and weird. a) What has the language issue have to do with the current discussion b) It may be a coincidence, but rather often when you are replying to my posts, you start writing how you hate some group of people because of reason x, without me actually being part of the group of people (for example now people who hate English ESC entries and the other day about "Corbynites"). And I am not sure if you actually falsely try to misplace me into those groups or you just completely out of the blue decide to go on a random rant against group of people who are not involved in the discussion (nor are the subject of it).

2) And as I am really not concerned about this, then I let A-Lister or whoever is actually concerned about it to answer to the question.

PS: I am somewhat concerned about UK and Ireland sending crap to ESC... although it has nothing to do with the language or culture, but it is rather about the half arsed way of picking the entries and therefor ending up with simply crappy stuff.

 

[FilipFromSweden]

Who the hell cares that Australia isn't in Europe? Neither is Israel or Armenia. Baku is geographically in Asia - ESC 2012 was hosted in Asia! So was it 1979 and 1999. Australia is just one country, it isn't going to destroy the euro concept of Eurovision and it definitely didn't this year. The rules are set by EBU so it is theirs to break. They owe nothing to anyone.

 

[GRE]

http://www.eurovision.tv/page/about/which-countries-can-take-part#Which countries?

 

[tuorem]

Who's saying that?

I've read posts of members of this forum clearly stating that Australia should be allowed to compete while potential expansion to other countries would be nonsense. Personally, I don't see what would make Australia a special case with regard to the EBU application criteria any participant should meet. An anniversary participation was ok to celebrate the longevity of the contest, but a permanent one would totally be out of step with the spirit of Eurovision while making the EBU lose the little credibility they had left.

Apart from the fact that they broadcasted the contest for a long time, that viewing rates are probably high and that they have money to put on the table, I can't see any valid argument in favor of their participation from now on. But that's probably enough for the EBU, since they'll most likely ignore their own requirements to keep them in.

I talked with lots of non-ESC fans around me about the contest this year, and each one of them told me: "What the hell is Australia doing here? That's weird and not coherent for a European contest..." I think that is the difference between unbiased people who expect European countries and geographically-close countries to take part in Eurovision, and die-hard fans who convince themselves that - because expansion is thrilling - a country located on the other side of the world is legitimate to participate, against all logic.

As I said when Australia was announced as a participant in 2015, it would set a precedent because Australia was like the last country to pick really It's one of the farthest states from Europe, and Europe is and will remain a geographical area. Moreover, the European ancestry of most Aussies does not make them European, even if there are obvious ties with our continent, they aren't "closer" to us in any way than Canada, the US, Argentina, etc. which no one would dare calling them European. These countries have their own stories and each new generation who's born there take them away a little more from the European identity. "Europeaness" is not inscribed forever in our genes, we adopt the culture of the country we're born in, therefore one has to live in Europe to be and feel European.

 

[SpZ]

Who the hell cares that Australia isn't in Europe? Neither is Israel or Armenia. Baku is geographically in Asia - ESC 2012 was hosted in Asia! So was it 1979 and 1999. Australia is just one country, it isn't going to destroy the euro concept of Eurovision and it definitely didn't this year. The rules are set by EBU so it is theirs to break. They owe nothing to anyone.

Australia being outside of Europe is not what is relevant in discussing them joining ESC. Being outside of EBU broadcasting area is relevant though. (Both Israel and Armenia are in EBU broadcasting area and Armenia and Baku are in Europe as well) And really a thing called geographical Europe does not exist any more than genetical races.
Australia joining ESC wont destroy eurovision, but it decreases the transparency of EBU and creates a corrupt and arbitrary system where countries do not join ESC based on some sort of criteria, but rather by some dudes randomly picking some countries to participate while telling others that they can not participate (without any objective reasoning).
If EBU for example would publicly state that they wish to expand ESC outside of Europe and if they open it up for other countries as well, I'd be all for Australia participating.

 

[EscGeek]

 

[AdelAdel]

It's the EBU membership dictates which countries can join ESC, and not the geographical location. If Australia joins EBU and starts spending tons of money to earn their PQ spot, then I'll have no problems with them participating. As of now, Australia is not a part of EBU nor it does spend money on EBU, so that's why I'm against them participating.

What is strange is that countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel so desperately want to be a part of Europe like it was an alpha continent or something :? The truth is that these countries geographically lie mostly (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia) or completely (Israel, Armenia) in Asia, and IMO they should be proud of this. If culture is the reason why these countries are considered European, then you might as well call USA and Australia Europe And it's not like all countries in Europe have the same culture, either. You have to be a fool to say that there's no difference between let's say Italian and Swedish cultures.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

This thread is like banging your head on a brick wall lol. I've said my opinion, I never said I was right, in the same way that nobody who has a different opinion is right. They're all opinions.

At the end of the day, nobody here is the defender/enforcer of the Eurovision rules. That duty falls to the EBU. They clearly agree with my view, that Australian participation is completely acceptable for Eurovision. So there really isn't a whole lot to debate

 

[SpZ]

The truth is that these countries geographically lie mostly (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia) or completely (Israel, Armenia) in Asia, and IMO they should be proud of this.

The truth is that there is no geographical separation of Europe from Asia and Africa, but that it is a made up distinction by people.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

The truth is that there is no geographical separation of Europe from Asia and Africa, but that it is a made up distinction by people.

There is: the Ural Mountains, the Caucasus, and the Mediterranean Sea. And in response to your earlier post, Armenia is not geographic Europe, never has been. Georgia and Azerbaijan just have tiny slivers of their territory within Europe, as does Kazakhstan.

 

[SpZ]

There is: the Ural Mountains, the Caucasus, and the Mediterranean Sea. And in response to your earlier post, Armenia is not geographic Europe, never has been. Georgia and Azerbaijan just have tiny slivers of their territory within Europe, as does Kazakhstan.

And what makes the Ural/Caucasus mountains end Europe while the Alps, Pyrenees or La Manche for that matter don't?


PS: I accept that there is geographical Europe in the sense that it is the whole territory of what is defined as Europe. That is Europe defines the geography and geography does not define Europe (therefor it is a constructed thing, not anything you could observe in the nature for example).

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

And what makes the Ural/Caucasus mountains end Europe while the Alps, Pyrenees or La Manche for that matter don't?

I don't pretend to be a geographical expert so don't ask me why the boundaries are the way they are, I just know what the boundaries of Europe are. My guess is that Iberia and the Italian Peninsula are still part of the Eurasian plate, hence why the mountains aren't a continental boundary. British Isles technically aren't part of any continent because islands are continent-less - but go back a few thousand years, and we were part of Europe. Shows how fluid this thing is, and why you shouldn't be judging Eurovision membership on geography

PS: I accept that there is geographical Europe in the sense that it is the whole territory of what is defined as Europe. That is Europe defines the geography and geography does not define Europe (therefore it is a constructed thing, not anything you could observe in the nature for example).

We are connected to Africa too, yet that is on a different continental plate. Being joined by land doesn't mean much as sea levels rise and fall.