Eurovision..

[Steveboy]

Thats the last time I watch that stupid show..

last year Ukraine got the sympathy vote because they were invaded ...

This year is a guy waiting for a heart operation...

Next year? Some guy who lost both legs ?

I was trying to work out why all the presenters have those stupid hair styles 

[Jerash]

Thats the last time I watch that stupid show..

last year Ukraine got the sympathy vote because they were invaded ...

This year is a guy waiting for a heart operation...

Next year? Some guy who lost both legs ?

I was trying to work out why all the presenters have those stupid hair styles 

You were supposed to be boycotting it!))))


.

[Steveboy]

Thats the last time I watch that stupid show..

last year Ukraine got the sympathy vote because they were invaded ...

This year is a guy waiting for a heart operation...

Next year? Some guy who lost both legs ?

I was trying to work out why all the presenters have those stupid hair styles 

You were supposed to be boycotting it!))))


.

No we cheered Moldova on 

Moldova is the closest thing to Russia now anyway

[Jerash]

Thats the last time I watch that stupid show..

last year Ukraine got the sympathy vote because they were invaded ...

This year is a guy waiting for a heart operation...

Next year? Some guy who lost both legs ?

I was trying to work out why all the presenters have those stupid hair styles 

You were supposed to be boycotting it!))))


.

No we cheered Moldova on 

Moldova is the closest thing to Russia now anyway

I lost my appetite after last year - Russia came in as the favourite and then lost to Ukraine's illegal song entry. But I was more or less done the year before when the victory went to a bearded "woman".


.

[Steveboy]

Yes its finished , the liberals have taken the show over! They can't keep their noses out of anything!

[msmoby]

Loved it ...  Shame Russia's entry wasn't allowed by Ukraine and we'd never have heard Steveboy 'sympathy vote' crap ...

Think 'we' should allow in the US and Canada;)

We certainly had diversity....

Romania's entry was 'different' - a yodaling lass ..

Lots of this years entrance were found on their nations' flavour of The Voice

[AvHdB]

Like allot of other things it is about money, big money.

If one looks at things with this perspective than one can understand why countries such as Australia and Israel participate in Eurovisionless.

I sort of wonder if there is a YouTube version of Abba winning or the failed attempt of Celine Dion performing for Switzerland (I think)?

[Markje]

How many of the last 10 year winners had a lasting successful musical career? How many from say 80s to 90s? I think that sums it up for me

[Jerash]

Celebrating diversity.... As long as it doesn't include Russia.

[msmoby]

How many of the last 10 year winners had a lasting successful musical career? How many from say 80s to 90s? I think that sums it up for me

UK

Buck's Fizz '81

Katrina and  the Waves '97  - still doing the rounds

IRL

Johnny Logan 80, 87 as a singer and 92 as a composer -still doing the rounds

[msmoby]

Celebrating diversity.... As long as it doesn't include Russia.

Russia entered at the last possible moment and quite clearly sought a 'fight' by entering a 'wheel-chair' bound lass - who had toured Crimea...    They played her and UA were daft enough to 'bite'...

Result ? Russia now mocks the competition they've tried so hard to win   I hope Portugal 2018 will enjoy a Russian entry - otherwise they are cutting off their noses to spite themselves   

[Manny]

Celebrating diversity.... As long as it doesn't include Russia.

I didn't watch it. Political nonsense.

Usual BBC nonsense too: https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/863514162923700224

[Contrarian]

How many of the last 10 year winners had a lasting successful musical career? How many from say 80s to 90s? I think that sums it up for me

You forgot the 70's.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/3FsVeMz1F5c" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/3FsVeMz1F5c</a> 

[B.B.]

Celebrating diversity.... As long as it doesn't include Russia.

Russia invades and annexes Crimea...and now they don't get to be in Eurovision in Kiev.  Boo, hoo, hoo.

I'm sure Russia will get its shot next year ... provided it can manage not to invade Portugal in the interim.   

B/B

[B.B.]

This year is a guy waiting for a heart operation...

That was widely regarded as lame.  I am actually in Kiev at the moment, and visited the Ukr Folk Fan Zone in Sophia Square which was far better than the competition in general, IMO, although it wasn't limited to folk.  There was an orchestra playing Beethoven's Fifth earlier today, demonstrating that Beethoven WAS Metal Before There Was Electricity.   

They have a rock band playing there right now.  Much better than the crapola yodeling and warbling etc.

B/B

[Contrarian]

Celebrating diversity.... As long as it doesn't include Russia.

Russia invades and annexes Crimea...and now they don't get to be in Eurovision in Kiev.  Boo, hoo, hoo.

I'm sure Russia will get its shot next year ... provided it can manage not to invade Portugal in the interim.   

B/B

Invading Portugal might require assault ships for that purpose. 

[Manny]

Russia invades

It was not really an invasion. They were merely protecting their assets before the yobs paid by you lot, the EU and Soros got a grip of them. It was more defensive. Democratic really as it followed the will of the people and corrected a historical anomaly at the same time.

[Jerash]

Based on several reports from multiple sources, people in Krimea are happy with the change. No more Ukrainian chaos.


.

[Markje]

Based on several reports from multiple sources, people in Krimea are happy with the change. No more Ukrainian chaos.


.

Im hearing the same things.

[B.B.]

It was not really an invasion.

Lulz, then what was it 'really'?  C'mon, dude.  Just stop.  There is no credible "oh, but it really wasn't an invasion" story, here.

They were merely protecting their assets before the yobs paid by you lot, the EU and Soros got a grip of them.

Imagine if Brussels dispatched EU troops - er, or some soldiers from EU countries went 'on vacation' - to Scotland and then seized it before that Teresa May woman could implement Brexit.  Or to Little Baghdad London.  You'd be dialed-up to 11....

It was more defensive.

Staahp, before your credibility goes full hemorrhage. 

Democratic really as it followed the will of the people and corrected a historical anomaly at the same time.

Russia agreed, via international treaty obligations (see Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the NPT), to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Thus the need for the tiniest of fig leaves with the slow-motion invasion of Ukraine via false flag operation, in which they managed to forget or not bother to take the Russian license plates off of the trucks.  Oops.

Based on several reports from multiple sources, people in Krimea are happy with the change. No more Ukrainian chaos.

Let's assume that it true.  It was still and invasion and a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and Russia's treaty obligations (see above).  Furthermore, while Ukraine does permit secession, it is to be voted on by the entire country, not administered by an occupying foreign power that somehow managed to not include a "stay in Ukraine" option on the "referendum" the result of which was a foregone conclusion.

Bear in mind that I don't particularly care whether Crimea is part of Ukr or Rus, but let's stop with the attempted gaslighting about how it went down. 

B/B

[Markje]

Let's assume that it true.  It was still and invasion and a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and Russia's treaty obligations (see above).  Furthermore, while Ukraine does permit secession, it is to be voted on by the entire country, not administered by an occupying foreign power that somehow managed to not include a "stay in Ukraine" option on the "referendum" the result of which was a foregone conclusion.

Crimea was already a republic of their own which deferred some authority to Ukraine. Law-wise speaking it was a difficult contraption. Crimea did have the authority to secede from Ukraine all by its own without Ukraine's approval. Ukraine had in its laws indeed a probition which would need the entire country to vote, but that was not in Crimea's law.

Russia provided troops and means to make sure the Ukrainian army would not interfere with this process. That they claimed they were unrelated green men at first, was lying through their teeth and everyone knew that. They were Russian soldiers.

If California were to vote to leave the USA, would the USA need to agree on that?
If Scotland were to leave the UK, would the UK need to agree on that?

Kosovo was handled much the same, although that process did have the UN's approval and Moscow moved on Crimea far too swiftly for anyone to respond.

However all that doesnt change 1 fact:

Crimea was happy with their choice, and now 2 years later they are still happy with their choice. The majority is happy. Therefore the only sane thing to do was to acknowledge it and stop these silly sanction-games.

Ukraine lost , because it made the people unhappy. If Crimea was a happy camper, they'd have never voted to leave.

[B.B.]

Crimea was already a republic of their own which deferred some authority to Ukraine. Law-wise speaking it was a difficult contraption. Crimea did have the authority to secede from Ukraine all by its own without Ukraine's approval. Ukraine had in its laws indeed a probition which would need the entire country to vote, but that was not in Crimea's law.

According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine and article 3 of the 2012 Ukrainian law "On all-Ukrainian referendum", territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in Crimea.

You are also failing to account for Russia's obligations under the Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the NPT. 

Russia provided troops and means to make sure the Ukrainian army would not interfere with this process. That they claimed they were unrelated green men at first, was lying through their teeth and everyone knew that. They were Russian soldiers.

The fix was in from the beginning.  Can we just stop pretending?

If California were to vote to leave the USA, would the USA need to agree on that?

Actually, it would require the USA to agree.  We fought a war about such things, and the matter was decided in the affirmative.  There's actually a SCOTUS case on the subject as well, "Texas v White", that says no.  So basically it would require a constitutional amendment.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, would the UK need to agree on that?

As I understand it, Scotland would need permission from Parliament

However all that doesnt change 1 fact:

Crimea was happy with their choice, and now 2 years later they are still happy with their choice. The majority is happy. Therefore the only sane thing to do was to acknowledge it and stop these silly sanction-games.

There was never a free choice.  You are welcome to point to the 'status quo' option on the referendum ballot to stay in Ukraine.  It was a fraud from the beginning. 

Ukraine lost , because it made the people unhappy.

Ukraine lost because Russia is and was a much stronger nation, and able to impose its will.

If Crimea was a happy camper, they'd have never voted to leave.

There was never a "stay" option.

B/B

[Texan77]

Let's assume that it true.  It was still and invasion and a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and Russia's treaty obligations (see above).  Furthermore, while Ukraine does permit secession, it is to be voted on by the entire country, not administered by an occupying foreign power that somehow managed to not include a "stay in Ukraine" option on the "referendum" the result of which was a foregone conclusion.

Crimea was already a republic of their own which deferred some authority to Ukraine. Law-wise speaking it was a difficult contraption. Crimea did have the authority to secede from Ukraine all by its own without Ukraine's approval. Ukraine had in its laws indeed a probition which would need the entire country to vote, but that was not in Crimea's law.

Russia provided troops and means to make sure the Ukrainian army would not interfere with this process. That they claimed they were unrelated green men at first, was lying through their teeth and everyone knew that. They were Russian soldiers.

If California were to vote to leave the USA, would the USA need to agree on that?
If Scotland were to leave the UK, would the UK need to agree on that?

Kosovo was handled much the same, although that process did have the UN's approval and Moscow moved on Crimea far too swiftly for anyone to respond.

However all that doesnt change 1 fact:

Crimea was happy with their choice, and now 2 years later they are still happy with their choice. The majority is happy. Therefore the only sane thing to do was to acknowledge it and stop these silly sanction-games.

Ukraine lost , because it made the people unhappy. If Crimea was a happy camper, they'd have never voted to leave.

I guess this would be consider a fair and normal election in Russia.

First the opposition was not aloud to organized and many were jailed and some never seen again.

Second voting groups that would of likely voted against it were intimated into not voting.

Third from what can be determines by any poling the Russian never bother to count the votes they just made up the numbers.

You are right about the way Russia came in fast for any body to react. This was a huge surprise and no plans were made in advance of Russia doing this nor were any materials in place for this. So why do you now complain about nato's reaction to Russia by placing thousands of troops near the Russian border. If Russia chooses to behave this way there is no choice. 

[Markje]

B.B. ,
First nice to have a real discussion about Crimea, however I would have thought better of you.

According to article 73 of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine and article 3 of the 2012 Ukrainian law "On all-Ukrainian referendum", territorial changes can only be approved via a referendum where all the citizens of Ukraine are allowed to vote, including those that do not reside in Crimea.

But Like I said, it wasn't in Crimea's law, and Crimea under the Ukrainian constitution was a seperate republic (country) with its own laws and privileges. According to their law, it was within their right to leave Ukraine and take back their sovereignty. (Much like the UK is doing with Brexit... it was for some people all about getting a say back on their own country).

You are also failing to account for Russia's obligations under the Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the NPT. 

Since I don't know anything about that, I will concede this point to you.

The fix was in from the beginning.  Can we just stop pretending?

Because of the people, the fix was in from the beginning, not because of Russia. Russia just made the "unofficial" situation "official".

Actually, it would require the USA to agree.  We fought a war about such things, and the matter was decided in the affirmative.  There's actually a SCOTUS case on the subject as well, "Texas v White", that says no.  So basically it would require a constitutional amendment.

Ok, thanks for the information.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, would the UK need to agree on that?

As I understand it, Scotland would need permission from Parliament

Perhaps my examples were unclear. so would the UK require (absolutely require, by law) article 50 of the EU to leave? Or can they just declare it all null and void and return to day X -1 just before signing the article to join the EU.

However all that doesnt change 1 fact:

Crimea was happy with their choice, and now 2 years later they are still happy with their choice. The majority is happy. Therefore the only sane thing to do was to acknowledge it and stop these silly sanction-games.

There was never a free choice.  You are welcome to point to the 'status quo' option on the referendum ballot to stay in Ukraine.  It was a fraud from the beginning. 

If you think that having a 3d option to return to ukraine (because Crimea was already an independent country when the referendum took place, they left Ukraine 3 days prior.) would change the outcome you'd be dead-wrong.
 

Ukraine lost , because it made the people unhappy.

Ukraine lost because Russia is and was a much stronger nation, and able to impose its will.

The public in Crimea: We're going home, we're going home, huuuuuge fireworks and vodka-party.... yeah right.

If Crimea was a happy camper, they'd have never voted to leave.

There was never a "stay" option.

B/B

See above, it wouldn't have mattered. The people wanted to return to Russia since 1991, when the USSR fell apart. Many Crimeans didn't even know they were with Ukraine until that year.

Mark.

[Markje]

I guess this would be consider a fair and normal election in Russia.

One of the very few yes. Thats the problem if you "fix" the results all the time, the one time it is normal you aren't believed, especially because of the numbers (96% pro-russia and 80% of voters).

First the opposition was not aloud to organized and many were jailed and some never seen again.

The opposition was there, they were simply ignored by most of the people.

Second voting groups that would of likely voted against it were intimated into not voting.

They weren't they simply didn't vote as they realised it was useless. otherwise it would have been 78% pro-russia with a 100% turnout of voters.

Third from what can be determines by any poling the Russian never bother to count the votes they just made up the numbers.

Thats simply western-media lies. I can't say this any nicer, the western media lied to you.

You are right about the way Russia came in fast for any body to react. This was a huge surprise and no plans were made in advance of Russia doing this nor were any materials in place for this. So why do you now complain about nato's reaction to Russia by placing thousands of troops near the Russian border. If Russia chooses to behave this way there is no choice.

Russia did the same that we did in Kosovo with the UN help. I think they reacted much faster, more helpful to the locals and the general feelz in Crimea was that this all went excellent and there wasn't much to complain about.

- Tatars got their language back, instead of UKR only.
- Russians were "allowed" to speak Russian again (they always did and noone reported to kiev that they weren't speaking Ukr).
- Everyone's assets got re-evaluated and noted in the Russian logs, corruption went down hugely.
- NONE of the government employees lost their jobs.... the only ones that got replaced quit voluntary and moved back to Ukraine because they felt at home in Ukraine.

- Noone died because of this proceedings. (Despite msmoby's claim otherwise).

As far as coups go, this must've been one of the most friendliest in history. Even friendlier than the replacing of Yanukovich.

Crimea's view on the matter was like this:  OMG WERE GOING HOME!