Hacker News Reader

Comment by harigov | Hacker News Reader

What is going on in this world? I was reading news today that the parties on the right side of political spectrum are gaining ground all over Europe. US already has Republicans in power. Every country is becoming more nationalistic. What is driving this change? AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

View on HN

This is not nationalistic. One of the standard things that happens with Visa costs is reciprocity. If you charge my citizens a fee for a visa, then I'll charge your citizens.

What is different here is that the EU is involved, and the EU is many countries which generally act like a bloc.

So the US grants Free Visa Access to 23 of the 28 members of the EU countries and likewise those 23 countries grant Free Visa Access to US citizens traveling to the EU. But what about those other five countries?

To make it even worse a US citizen can travel to say Germany, not pay for a visa and then travel to one of the five other countries and since a Germany Visa is actually a Schengen Visa and is good for any of the Schengen area you don't need another visa.

The EU has tried to work with the US to fix this but the US has so far refused or ignored the request.

Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, and Romania are not in the Schengen Area.

It is not clear to me whether by "one of the five other countries" you mean that any of them or whether you mean Poland.

You can travel to non schengen countries with a schengen visa. At least to countries which have active applications to become schengen members e.g. Cyprus. It's just that Cyprus can't issue a schengen visa. Partly one of the reasons Cyprus doesn't get as many refugees as Greece even though being geographically much closer to Syria and Turkey.

This appears to be correct, although note that one must have a double or multiple entry visa.

> AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

Populism and a perception that a more globally-connected world is concentrating the benefits of growth into the assets and control of a handful of individuals instead of "a rising tide lifting all boats." Also, the message that some politicians have been using ("trade agreements are evil!" "immigration is bad!" "the EU is making us abuse you!") has taken hold and people are pushing back against the perceived wrongs.

(I intentionally made no judgment call on the accuracy of these perceptions.)

I find most people have no problem acknowledging that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing, unless the topic is populist politics, then minds seem to change on the topic.

Oh, plenty of people that oppose the brand of right-wing politics usually denoted in talk about "populist" politics (which is largely authoritarian nationalism) have no problem acknowledg ING that the charge of current economic policies unfairly and unnecessarily increasing the rich/poor gap are true.

It's possible to believe that and think that the program of the "populists" coming to power on the back of it does nothing to alleviate that problem, as well as causing a bunch of other problems.

Capital tends to amalgamate. Thus, I find your perceptions to be on the right track.

> the message that some politicians have been using ("trade agreements are evil!" "immigration is bad!" "the EU is making us abuse you!") has taken hold

Or, perhaps, the dissatisfaction was there all along, and the politicians are merely exploiting the pain of a faction of the electorate. Humans are tribal. They don't become tribal overnight because a politician told them to do so.

That's partially true but I think it's partially a recasting of right-wing thought into a left-wing mould.

The main driving factor is third-world immigration, and in particular the perception that mass immigration from the third world has had deleterious effects on the West, both economically and culturally.

What we're seeing right now is, I think, a preference cascade. For years people have been told that opposition to mass immigration is "racist" and have kept quiet about it, but now it's become more socially acceptable to talk about it.

I don't buy this theory 100% but I think Mark is on the right track:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/18/mark_blyth...

The top 1% have been extremely successful in funneling wealth to themselves. The middle and lower classes are getting pissed off. They perhaps don't know exactly how to fight back so they are just smashing shit at random.

This is pretty much it. In the UK, despite the folks in The City funneling that wealth to themselves, the finance industry provides 35% of the British GDP. By fucking them over (whether or not they deserve it), the poor who rely on a lot of welfare have fucked themselves over in the long run.

And over in the US, they've elected a man president who is so boorish that if he ever gives a speech that isn't laden with idle insults and self-aggrandisement, that pundits talk about how presidential and statesmanlike it is.

As others have stated here, this is largely a reaction to globalization and immigration issues that have been present in the world's view. Globalization has left a large portion of each country behind. Large multinational firms have moved a lot of their low-skill labor to cheaper markets and developing countries, leaving a large swath of former employees in their wake with very little perceived hope of finding another job at the same level. Whether you agree with the feeling of hopelessness or not, you have to admit that there is a large population that feels that way. You can't tell them that their feelings or views are not valid and that this is good for the world; their world just got ruined for the profit of others.

Pair this with a large influx of immigrants from other countries, and it scares people even more. The constant threat of terrorism has caused people to live in fear, and governments to react accordingly.

All in all, those are some major parts of the puzzle.

In another comment section (Reddit, I believe) there was anecdotal evidence that visitors from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania regularly outstayed their visas and were notorious for violating a tourist visa, hence the additional checks the US wanted to put them through.

> In another comment section (Reddit, I believe) there was anecdotal evidence that visitors from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania regularly outstayed their visas and were notorious for violating a tourist visa, hence the additional checks the US wanted to put them through.

I guess it was anecdotal evidence, because the data shows the contrary:

- Bulgaria: 1.74% - Croatia: 1.08% - Cyprus: 1.35% - Poland: 1.49% - Romania: 2.06%

There are a few countries on the VWP that have higher overstaying ratios (Hungary, Chile, Slovakia). Croatia in particular has an overstaying ratio lower than Austria's and Netherlands'. Source: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015...

The reason they don't get VWP is the visa refusal rate, aka "US embassy in your country does not want to give you visa".

Using the visa refusal rate as an excuse sounds a bit like circular logic: "We're not going to give you online rubber-stamped visas, because we're currently not giving you many visas." I'm not saying that the refusals don't have merit, but since they are discretionary, the refusal rate may never improve. It's just the perception: "Those Eastern-Europeans seem dodgy to me, so we won't allow them because they'll surely overstay." Yet the reality is that they don't overstay so much.

Or do they have low levels of overstay because they are strict on visas in the first place?

Its circular indeed.

"In another comment section (Reddit, I believe) there was anecdotal evidence that visitors from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania regularly outstayed their visas and were notorious for violating a tourist visa, hence the additional checks the US wanted to put them through."

Well, what would you think if we said the same thing about US-americans (remember the term american is also from Colombians) from a number of states?

No, we the EU are one and if you do this to Bulgaria, you are doing this to all of us. This is not nationalism, it's actually the opposite.

US Americans are just Americans. Only people who are incredibly pedantic think otherwise.

Pedantic or Latin American, in my experience; it's not much fun to be forgotten, and I feel their frustration but can't think of a very good solution. "US-American" doesn't really roll off the tongue... Maybe the US could adopt the same ethnonymn as Usa, Japan? :P

Why though? Like what's wrong with being Brazilian or Chilean??

Brazilians and Chileans are Americans too. Even though they are from another continent.

Well they are South Americans then. In my experience (my Brazilian friends at least) they prefer being called Brazilian. Nobody except those with an axe to grind or more time than is good for them care that people from the United States of America are called Americans. I really wish people would just grow up and stop caring about stupid little things like that.

Or people for who English is not their first language. In Spanish at least, an "americano" is anyone from the Americas. People from the US are "estadounidenses".

Nobody says estadounidenses. The standard, common word in western hemisphere Spanish for people from the United States is an ethnic slur against us.

Which should help indicate how good an idea it is to invite more people from that region to our country.

In Spain at least, "estadounidense" is the standard for "American".

Which is the ethnic slur?

Gringo

Maybe it has something to do with the US/CIA fucking up those countries.

It started with the Mexican-American war of 1846, so that is a viable theory (though the CIA was not yet involved). That's the war Mexicans still teach in every Mexican school with a big famous map showing that California and Texas are Mexican territory unjustly stolen by the USA.

Stolen isn't the right word. Anyway they should just get over it.

Citizens from all the countries you mention can just emigrate to Western Europe, with much less hassle.

On top of that, check the terrorism statistics for these countries, it's basically non-existant (maybe Cyprus has some due to Greek-Turkish tensions).

And as a further point, they're all middle-income economies 10k km away, with a combined population of 60 million people. Barely half of Mexico :)

Terrorism in Cyprus? Been living in Cyprus most of my life I don't remember hearing of any terrorist incidents other than an attempted bombing of Israeli embassy in the 80s. There's definitely more terrorist activity in Western Europe than eastern.

Are you serious? It is largely a reaction to globalization and the refugee crisis.

What made you doubt my seriousness? Of course I am serious. I am not aware of how bad refugee crisis. Sure, people are complaining but we are not talking about millions of refugees that change the social fabric altogether. Globalization has been going on for decades now and things do seem to have improved for many. Why now?

> ...but we are not talking about millions of refugees that change the social fabric altogether.

That is exactly what people are talking about. [1-5]

> Globalization has been going on for decades now and things do seem to have improved for many. Why now?

Things have improved for some, generally in different countries than the places where things have gotten much worse. See the decline of middle America. Add an elite class who's comfortable with and encourages income inequality [6], and you get lots of anger and backlash. Especially if you only call the people with complaints about globalization ignorant and racist for caring about their own self interest.

1. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445237/sweden-crime-ra...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...

3. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2523332/migrants-sexually-assa...

4. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/eight-iraqi-migrants...

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Zk3TUNRBs

6. http://paulgraham.com/ineq.html

> millions of refugees that change the social fabric altogether

Note that there were slightly over 1 million applications for asylum in Europe in 2015 [1]. I can't find numbers for totals in 2016, but [2] has some raw statistics & charts. Note that these numbers don't account for migrants that don't apply for asylum (which could be a very small or a very large percentage, but is likely non-zero).

I can't speak for the "changing the social fabric" bit though.

[1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

[2]: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

[cache of 2]: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ki9SPSv...

Yeah, I was gonna say early Climate Change effects and Automation/AI's wealth concentration. Just wait until the Genetic Engineering really starts rolling now that we have CRISPR-CAS9.

Resistance to smallpox for those that can afford it or are useful?

Meh, mortality rate would be bad, but not as bad as it was in those days. IVs help a lot with dehydration, which they did not have. You'll need something more lethal to accomplish the terrifying and sadistic goal of being the worst thing to have happened to the world since the dinosaurs. Likely, we will just mumble along like we always have through the black death, polio, etc.

> It is largely a reaction to globalization and the refugee crisis.

If that is indeed the real reason, it means we as a species have hilariously overblown reactions to perceived threats.

Is this news to anyone?

And (in many countries) significantly underestimate the the threat from actual threats like pollution and climate change.

I've been working on a project related to greenhouse gas emission savings lately and it's depressing how "massive" gains in efficiencies are a drop in the bucket of total emissions.

What's the big deal with climate change and famine? I am sitting in an air-conditioned room and have a pantry full of food! We as a species have hilariously overblown reactions to perceived threats.

The smug your-problem-aren't-real attitude by the elite is certainly another reason for populism.

It certainly doesn't have to be a physical threat. People respond extremely negatively historically to forces that alter the culture they are used to or prefer.

If you take 30 million people from African Muslim majority nations and drop them into France in the next few decades, would the French culture remain unchanged? No, it would change dramatically. The people of France would react as you'd expect to the notion of that cultural change. The people of France - in my opinion - largely believe their culture works, that it is very valuable, that it is beneficial to their quality of life. Why would they want to see it change substantially? There will be something like a billion plus more people living in Africa and the Middle East in just the next 25 or 30 years, while the population of Europe contracts. Europeans have one of two choices to make in that time: heavily lock down immigration, or allow vast cultural change (and I'm sure it'll vary widely from nation to nation what occurs).

This is such FUD.

How would preventing US citizens from coming to the EU prevent African and Middle Eastern refugees to come to Europe?

I prefer a Middle Eastern or African to a Trump supporter. It's just too dangerous to let them in to spread their ideology. ;-)

Safe to say, Trump supporters aren't traveling to europe.

This isn't true, his base of support is motivated by any number of factors and many of them are financially well off.

Plenty of his political supporters would be happier if he behaved more like the usual politicians but will put up with his shenanigans as long as they get what they want from him.

I meant that the refugee crisis fueled populism, not that it prompted this potential visa change for US citizens.

> Are you serious? It is largely a reaction to globalization and the refugee crisis.

The financial crisis is the real problem. The refugee crisis is just another problem on top of the existing one... Basically people already struggling to make end meet, don't want extra cheap labour in the market.

What's driving it all it the fact that US completely destabilized the Middle East and started funding ISIS and affiliates. This has resulted in one of the greatest humanitarian crisis in history, and triggered a massive influx of refugees seeking shelter in Europe from the region.

This is what's knows at the refugee crisis, and what the right wing European parties have been using to go mainstream.

For a while, I had thought that the modern world had finally transcended the grip of medieval-minded ignorance. But the medievals didn't go away, and they eventually organized and voted and, in the U.S., got lucky with a system that disproportionately allocates presidential voting power, allowing the GOP to win 3 out of the past 7 elections despite having won the vote only once.

Nation states are an invention of the 19th century.

Give the Middle Ages more credit.

Surely the U.S.A. (a 1776 result of the scientific Enlightenment responsible for every single improvement to human life, assuming that you don't want to be a disease-ridden illiterate peasant lucky to make it to your 30's) meets any reasonable categorization of a nation-state.

46% of Americans believe that humans were created in their current form sometime in the last 10,000 years by a Bronze Age deity fond of stoning. Don't even start trying to convince me that the medieval world is behind us.

[Citation Needed]

I realize there are some folks with their head in the sand, but I've never once met someone who actually believed that and I'm not even coastal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Come to Texas you can meet someone every day if you like.

The old joke: we could boost average living standards and educational accomplishment in two countries at the same time by giving Texas back to Mexico.

Right, I'd rather live in a fiefdom.

Citizens of western countries got lazy and let plutocrats take over. The result has been a re-distribution of wealth and power. More people are starting to find that uncomfortable: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/ec...

How many countries, western or otherwise, don't have some sort of oligarchs in control? Switzerland is famously low-level democratic, but who else?

And when have the proles ever actually been in control in western countries?

> AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

Globalization, the rise of the precariat, anemic economic recovery since the recession for the lower and middle classes, justified and unjustified distrust in institutions, better use of technology and propaganda by the right, poor quality of liberal/centerist establishment candidates...

But besides that, no, nothing is driving this phenomena.

It is true that populist parties are on the rise. However, both in France and in Germany, favorites for this year election are on the center-left (Emmanuel Macron and Martin Schultz, respectively) and very firmly in favor of more EU integration. The rise of nationalist parties doesn't necessarily mean that people are becoming more nationalist overall.

they're simply EU nationalists instead

There is no "EU nation", and therefore, no EU nationalists. Moreover, most of European federalists are internationalists.

Have you looked at their programs? They're not proposing any crackdown on immigration.

People are talking about globalism in response to your question, but that answer is beating around the bush. The truth is that neo-liberal elites have been slowly weakening democracies and taking more and more wealth and power. They recognize that the inequality gap is now too large, but in their greed and competitiveness they have been unable to relinquish their grasp despite and a critical mass of unrest is fomenting.

An example is how the US Democrats clearly needed to support an anti-establishment progressive to win the election but in their greed for power and wealth they maintained the status quo rather than doing something that would help the common man, giving up the election to a nationalist.

It's complicated but one issue is what you might call depression economics. Before in the 1930s and now there was an economic boom when people ran up a lot of debts followed by a period of anemic demand while the debts got repaid. Both periods had approx 0% interest rates and quite a bit of unemployment and the rise or right wing / fascist politics. Not quite sure why - I guess the left out people don't understand debt deflation and blame immigrants and foreigners for their lack of jobs and money. At least we have a lite version compared to the 30s.

Pretty much all of the responses here are irrelevant. (Perhaps accurate, but unrelated to this story.) As per the top comment on this article, what's happening is that The Economist hit a slow news day and wrote up a non-story in a misleading way.

For years now, the US hasn't honored visa-free travel for five eastern European countries. That technically violates the visa-free reciprocity agreement, so the EP occasionally makes some noise about enforcing those rules. The EC doesn't want to, nor do actual European member states (even the ones not getting reciprocity!) because it would hugely deter tourism, something places like Greece really can't afford.

So: the EC is rattling a saber to press the US to hurry up on a narrow bureaucratic issue. The US will probably continue to ignore them, and the EC will probably not do anything about it. A bunch of news orgs looking for clicks slapped dramatic headlines on that and spun it as closely related to current events, making all of us a little more ignorant.

This specific situation is not that, it's a problem with visa waiver reciprocity: all US citizens get a waiver to the EU, but not all EU countries get waiver in the US. In 2001 the EU adopted a rule that reciprocity is required for an EU visa waiver.

The US were notified about the non-reciprocity issue in 2014 alongside Australia, Brunei, Canada and Japan, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 April 2014[0]. The situation with Australia and Japan had been resolved by April 2016[1], Brunei resolved it in April 2016[2], and Canada is in the process of resolving it and will be implementing reciprocity through 2017 but there had been no such evidence from the US by December 2016[3]:

> Following intensive and coordinated efforts and sustained engagement between the EU and Canada at political and technical level ahead of the 16th EU-Canada Summit on 30 October 2016 in Brussels, Canada provided a clear timeline for achieving full visa waiver reciprocity with Bulgaria and Romania, the two remaining EU countries whose citizens still require visas. On 3 October 2016 Canada announced that it will lift the visa requirement from 1 May 2017 for Bulgarian and Romanian travellers who have held a Canadian temporary resident visa in the past 10 years or who hold a valid U.S. non-immigrant visa. The rest of the travellers will become visa-free as from 1 December 2017.

> Despite the stepping up of political and technical contacts, there have not been comparable indications of progress towards the lifting of visas with the U.S.

[0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...

[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1345_en.htm

[2] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-is-new/news/news/2016...

[3] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-4484_en.htm

One big factor is that those with personal experience of fascism are dying off.

> What is driving this change?

Financialization of the banking sector and globalisation[1] happened. Socialists in Europe and the US (if you like to call democrats socialists...) failed miserably to address any of the above in a meaningful way, so we're in 1929 all over again.

[1] Money can move freely across borders now but not people ;-)

> What is driving this change? AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

Well: unemployment, under employment, insecurity and difficult living ate really striking hard our societies. That's the reason.

Nothing much. One interesting fact:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/nationalities-granted...

There is not 1st world country in the top10 for EU immigration other than USA.

Would it be OK to ask for visa from Texas but not from Alaska? Huh?

> What is going on in this world? I was reading news today that the parties on the right side of political spectrum are gaining ground all over Europe. US already has Republicans in power. Every country is becoming more nationalistic. What is driving this change? AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

This is what it is like to be in a filter bubble.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com