EU lawmakers take aim at Eurovision over ‘rigged' televote
A group of 12 MEPs from socialist, leftist, green, and liberal groups has written to the top brass of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which organises the contest, expressing 'renewed apprehension regarding increasing concerns of irregularities tied to the 2025 contest' in a letter seen by Euronews.
Their appeal follows a wave of concern from national broadcasters, including the Netherlands' AVROTROS/NPO, Norway's NRK, Spain's RTVE, Slovenia's RTVSLO, Iceland's RÚV, Belgium's Flemish VRT, and Finland's Yle.
The broadcasters cited suspicions of televoting manipulation and questioned the role of state-backed promotion, particularly involving this year's runner-up in the contest, Israel's entry, which reportedly benefited from campaigns pursued by the Israeli Government Advertising Agency (Lapam).
Irish broadcaster RTÉ has formally requested access to the voting data, while VRT publicly questioned whether it will continue participating in the contest if full transparency is not ensured.
'While the Eurovision Song Contest is meant to unite Europe through music and culture, recent developments have cast a shadow over its credibility and neutrality,' Slovenian MEP Matjaž Nemec, who initiated the letter, told Euronews.
Nemec criticised the involvement of national governments in promoting their acts, calling it a breach of the EBU's principles of fairness, impartiality, and independence.
The letter cites data from VRT revealing significant and unexplained discrepancies between viewer numbers and televoting participation during the 2023–2025 contests.
'These trends are not easily explained by organic fluctuations in viewer enthusiasm and warrant further scrutiny,' the letter reads, warning that the increasing number of broadcasters questioning their own data points to a deeper, systemic issue.
'This is not an isolated concern: it signals a broader problem that must be addressed,' Nemec said.
The MEPs have called on the EBU to take specific actions, including releasing complete voting data, authorising an independent audit, and enforcing safeguards to prevent political interference in the contest.
'Without answers and accountability, Eurovision risks losing the trust of its audience and becoming a stage not for unity, but for manipulation,' Nemec warned, adding that the European public deserves full transparency on this year's voting process.
Eurovision Song Contest director Martin Green has issued an open letter addressing concerns about transparency and the integrity of the voting process.
Green acknowledged the issues raised by broadcasters and confirmed that they would be discussed at the upcoming EBU Reference Group meeting.
He noted that while promotional efforts by participating countries are permitted and common in the music industry, the EBU is reviewing whether such campaigns could unduly influence public voting.
He also pointed out that Eurovision's voting system incorporates 'multiple security layers' and is overseen by over 60 professionals across Cologne, Vienna, and Amsterdam, while the voting is managed by Once Germany GmbH and independently verified by EY (Ernst & Young).
Regarding the current rule limiting votes to 20 per payment method per person, Green stated that there is no evidence this affects the results. Nonetheless, the issue will be re-examined as part of the post-contest review process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
19 hours ago
- Euronews
Slovenia becomes first EU country to ban weapons trade with Israel
Slovenia will be 'the first European country' to ban weapons trade with Israel in response to Tel Aviv's actions in Gaza, Prime Minister Robert Golob told the country's Press Agency (STA) on Friday. 'At the initiative of Prime Minister Dr. Robert Golob, the government today adopted a decision prohibiting the export and transit of military weapons and equipment from or through the Republic of Slovenia to Israel, as well as the import of such goods from Israel into the Republic of Slovenia,' according to a statement cited by STA and published on the Slovenian government's webpage. The statement added that Golob's decision stems from his promise to 'act independently' against Israel if the EU 'failed to adopt concrete measures by mid-July'. 'Due to internal disagreements and lack of unity, the European Union is currently unable to fulfil this task,' the statement said. EU member states have now repeatedly failed to rally enough support to respond to Israel's ongoing actions in Gaza. Despite a review of the EU-Israel association agreement which revealed that the country's actions in Gaza were violating human rights, the EU 27 couldn't agree on any of the 10 sanctions proposed to them, including a partial suspension of Israel's access to the EU's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. An embargo on arms to Israel was never tabled among options for action at EU level. United Nations and EU rules state that human rights violations and war crimes should give rise to arms sales embargoes. In addition, following the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands have already halted or restricted exports. Israel imports almost 70% of its arsenal from the US, the world's largest arms exporter but Germany is Israel's second supplier. Since 7 October 2023, it has exported €485 millions' worth of weapons. Italy ranks third, supplying less than 1%. Slovenia has been one of the most vocal EU countries calling for EU action against Israel. The country recognised a Palestinian state in June last year and has since repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Gaza and increased aid deliveries to the enclave. It has also declared two far-right Israeli ministers, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as personae non grata.
Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide, Israeli scholar says
Voices describing Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide are rising: an increasing number of politicians, rights-defenders, historians and legal experts say there is a clear will on the part of the Jewish state to destroy the Palestinians as a group and render life in Gaza impossible. The accusations have been growing since South Africa launched a case at the UN's top court of justice in December 2023 alleging Israel is committing genocide, an accusation Israel rejected as "baseless". Euronews spoke to Omer Bartov, Dean's Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, an Ivy League US institution, who argues that what is unfolding in Gaza amounts to genocide. Separately, we sought the expert legal opinion of Stefan Talmon, an international law professor at the University of Bonn and currently a visiting research fellow at Oxford University, who contends there is no genocide. You can read Talmon's interview here. Proving genocidal intent Bartov, a genocide and Holocaust scholar, first described Israel's response to the 7 October terrorist attacks by Hamas as 'disproportionate' and even constituting 'war crimes and crimes against humanity'. However, by May 2024 he changed his evaluation of Israel's military campaign, labelling it genocide, as he believes there is mounting evidence showing intent behind Israel's actions. Back then, the Israeli army had ordered Palestinians out of Rafah, in the southern tip of the Gaza Strip, and moved them to Mawasi – a coastal area with almost no shelter. The army proceeded to flatten Rafah. 'Statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his government constitute proof of their intent to destroy the Palestinians and to make Gaza uninhabitable,' Bartov told Euronews. Israeli officials have, for example, referred to Palestinians as 'human animals,' also saying they would reduce Gaza to 'rubble'. As per the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide can be established when there is an 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.' Prosecuting those responsible for genocide remains a complicated and complex matter, with cases in front of international courts taking as long as 14 years, as was the case in verdicts on the Bosnian genocide in Srebrenica. While some experts see genocide as "crime of all crimes", others argue that genocide is a legal category that should not be observed as more important than war crimes or crimes against humanity, cautioning against prolonged court cases in pursuit of justice. To prove a genocide, you also have to show that the intent is being implemented and that there are no other motives than wanting to destroy the group, Bartov explained. He further pointed to systematic Israeli military operations aimed at demolishing 'hospitals, mosques, museums and the goal is then to force the population to leave,' despite the fact that 'people won't and can't leave and have no place to go to.' Israel has repeatedly rejected accusations of conducting a genocidal campaign, stating its operation is solely geared towards disempowering and eradicating Hamas. Also, Israel has stated it never intentionally targeted civilians, in turn accusing Hamas of using them as human shields. What distinguishes Israel's operation in Gaza from ethnic cleansing and confirms the will to destroy Palestinians, according to Bartov, is that 'you make it impossible for that group to reconstitute itself and it is section D of the Genocide Convention, it's about imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.' He points to a recent 65-page report by Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights that says Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide. The report documents the staggering number of miscarriages among Gazan women, the number of children who are born underweight or premature and maternal mortality amid famine due to lack of healthcare. Bartov believes Israel's operation in Gaza is set to go on, not to finish Hamas, which it is still fighting almost two years into the war, but to empty Gaza of Palestinians, as Israel no longer accepts the idea of a Palestinian state. Section A of the same convention says killing members of the group with the overall intent to destroy it also constitutes genocide. Section B mentions causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. Bartov says both apply in the case of Israel's operation in Gaza. 'That is clear, we are talking about between 60,000 and 100,000 dead,' said Bartov, also mentioning 140,000 wounded, the chronically ill who died because hospitals no longer function, and Palestinians debilitated by hunger. Bartov rejects the argument that the number of casualties released by the Hamas-controlled health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants, may be inaccurate or, as Israel claims, grossly exaggerated. He, like the Israeli NGO B'Tselem, which also labels Israel's actions in Gaza genocide, believes the Hamas figures are 'reliable', 'well documented' and even 'conservative', as thousands of bodies are still trapped under the rubble. 'Let the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) provide its own figures, they should allow the foreign press in, the burden of proof is on the IDF,' Bartov insisted, adding that the number of victims actually does not matter to prove genocide. 'The convention is about killing people and members of the group, it is not about killing all members of the group," he emphasised. Easing humanitarian crisis 'irrelevant' to genocide accusation Past ceasefires agreed to by Israel and the recent easing of the food blockade amid reports of starvation in Gaza do not change Bartov's genocide accusation. The ceasefires were imposed on Israel, he argues instead. 'The last ceasefire was imposed by President Trump as he came in, and in March, Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire, within a few minutes it killed a few hundred," he explained. 'This is has nothing to do with the main intent (of genocide) ... it is not at all something that is done willingly." Bartov claims that the Israeli government and Netanyahu openly tell the Israeli public that they are agreeing to 'the so-called humanitarian pause', notably under pressure from Trump, because 'these are measures that will make it possible for Israel to continue its operations.' In Gaza, Palestinians continue to be killed in the meantime, he says. Most Israelis 'in denial' of what is happening in Gaza When they released their reports on Monday, Israeli NGOs B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights also issued a common appeal, calling on 'Israelis and the international community to take immediate action to stop the genocide, using all legal tools available under international law.' We put the question of Israel's public opinion to Bartov, himself an Israeli citizen who served in the army. "Of course they are aware, you cannot not be aware, but most Israelis don't want to know," he said. 'Yesterday, there was an extraordinary report on Kan 11, the public TV, which also showed for the first time some images of starving children in Gaza but then said all this is fake news and showed footage of people selling fruits and vegetables at a market in Gaza.' Euronews verified the Kan 11 footage but also found that Israeli media claim that some of the photos depicting starving Palestinian children were reportedly manipulated. US and Europe 'duty-bound' to stop war in Gaza To Bartov, it is important to recognise what Israel is doing in Gaza as genocide 'because all signatory states of the Genocide Convention include all the European countries and the United States (which) are duty bound to do something' -- to prevent, stop and punish those responsible. Instead, according to him, the US and Europe remain 'complicit' in what is happening in Gaza. 'In the case of Germany it's especially appalling not only because it is the major European power, the major supplier (of weapons) to Israel, but also because it does it in the name of the Holocaust (...) the Staatraison.' Germany, he says, in feeling responsible for the Holocaust, should prevent crimes against humanity and genocide but not protect a country 'that is the successor state of the Holocaust while it is itself carrying out a genocide." "That is a complete distortion of the lessons of World War II, Nazism and the Holocaust," Bartov argued. Fear of mounting antisemitism While Bartov says urgent action is needed to stop the violence in Gaza, one of the long-term repercussions, he fears, is that 'Israel will become a pariah state (...) if it is allowed to get away with it." "If one has an interest in protecting Israel, helping it become a decent place, it has to impose measures on it now that would stop not only the killing of Palestinians but also the rapid erosion of democracy,' he implored. Bartov also expressed further concerns about the effect of Israel being a pariah state on Jewish communities around the world, which he says would be 'severe,' pointing to the rise of antisemitism. Bartov, who focused a great deal of his research on Nazi crimes, also deplores that institutions set up to commemorate the Holocaust, be they memorial centres or museums, have been silent on Gaza. Their mandate is not only to remind the public of the horrors of the Holocaust but also to prevent future atrocities by promoting education and remembrance. Their failure to speak up, he says, will dent their credibility. 'They will no longer be able to present themselves as anything but institutions that are only concerned with what could be done to the Jews by the Nazis. Anything else is not their business.' Could Hamas' 7 October attacks be labelled genocide? Asked whether the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023, that left close to 1,200 Israelis dead, could also be qualified as genocide, Bartov says: 'obviously, it was a war crime. Obviously, it was a crime against humanity because of the large numbers of civilians killed." "One would need to adjudicate that but it could be, if it is connected to the Hamas charter of the late 1980s which is an antisemitic, genocidal document, it could be seen as genocidal act.' 'I'm a little sceptical about that, but certainly I think one could make that argument. I'm sceptical because Hamas actually issued different documents later," Bartov concluded.
Euronews
a day ago
- Euronews
Is Europe ready to police AI? Supervision and sanctions start soon
Significant changes in terms of oversight and penalties are round the corner for AI suppliers in Europe as new provisions of the EU's AI Act enter into force from 2 August. Here's what will change month regarding the EU's rulebook on AI, which has been in force exactly one year this month, but which has been implemented gradually. National oversight On 2 August, member states will have to notify the European Commission about which market surveillance authorities they appoint to oversee businesses' compliance with the AI Act. That means that providers of AI systems will face scrutiny as of then. Euronews reported in May that with just three months to go until the early August deadline, it remained unclear in at least half of the member states which authority will be nominated. The EU executive did not want to comment back in March on which countries are ready yet, but expectations are that member states that recently went through elections will be delayed in setting up these regulators. According to a Commission official, some notifications have now been received, and they are under consideration. Laura Lazaro Cabrera, Programme Director for Equity and Data at the Centre for Democracy and Technology, told Euronews that many member states are set to miss the 2 August deadline to appoint their regulators. She said it's 'crucial' that national authorities are appointed as soon as possible, and 'that they are competent and properly resourced to oversee the broad range of risks posed by AI systems, including those to fundamental rights.' Artur Bogucki, an associate researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), echoed the likely delays. 'This isn't surprising when you consider the sheer complexity of what's required. Countries need to establish market surveillance authorities, set up notifying bodies, define sanction regimes, and somehow find staff with expertise spanning AI, data computing, cybersecurity, fundamental rights, and sector-specific knowledge. That's a tall order in today's competitive tech talent market,' he said. Bogucki said it doesn't stop there, because it remains to be seen how multiple bodies at both EU and national levels need to coordinate together. 'This complexity becomes even more challenging when you consider how the AI Act must interact with existing regulations like GDPR, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act. We're already seeing potential for overlaps and conflicts, reminiscent of how different data protection authorities across Europe have taken divergent approaches to regulating tech companies,' he said. Penalties Also entering into force are provisions enabling penalties. Companies may be fined up to €35 million for breaches of the AI Act, or up to 7%of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher. EU countries will need to adopt implementing laws that set out penalties for breaches and empower their authorities. For smaller companies, lower fines will apply. The AI Act sets a ceiling not a floor, for fines. According to Lazaro Cabrera, there is likely going to be 'significant variability on how member states choose to fine their public authorities for non-compliance of the AI Act, if at all.' She said that while there will be some divergence in how member states set the level of fines applicable, 'forum-shopping in this context has its limits.' 'Ultimately market surveillance authorities have jurisdiction to act in connection to any product entering the EU market as a whole, and fines are only one of many tools at their disposal,' she said. Bogucki said that the governance structure also needs to grapple with questions about prohibited AI practices, for example when it comes to biometric identification. 'Different member states may have very different political appetites for enforcement in these areas, and without strong coordination mechanisms at the EU level, we could see the same fragmentation that has plagued GDPR enforcement,' he said. GPAI Lastly, the rules on general purpose AI systems – which include large language models such as X's Grok, Google's Gemini, and OpenAI's ChatGPT – will enter into force. In July the Commission released a much-debated Code of Practice on GPAI. This voluntary set of rules that touches on transparency, copyright, and safety and security issues, aims to help providers of GPAI models comply with the AI Act. The Commission has recently said that those who don't sign can expect more scrutiny, whereas signatories are deemed compliant with the AI Act. But companies that sign the code will still need to comply with the AI rulebook. US tech giant Meta said last week that it will not sign, having slammed the rules for stifling innovation, others like Google and OpenAI said they will sign up. To make things more complicated, all the products that were placed on the market before 2 August have a two-year period to implement the rules, and all new tools launched after that date have to comply straight away. The EU AI Act continues to roll out in phases, each with new obligations for providers and deployers. Two years from now, on 2 August 2027, the AI Act will be applicable in full.
