
Most Europeans believe their countries are more polarised than 10 years ago - open-source-ux
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43760959
======
throwaway5752
They are under concerted attack by Russia, that bankrolls nationalist/anti-
immigration movements to strategically weaken intra EU relations (and intra
NATO).
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/10...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/10/everything-
we-know-so-far-about-russian-election-meddling-in-europe/) presents a decent
summary.

~~~
toasterlovin
Or there is a sizable portion of the European population who don’t want mass
immigration. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon that tensions develop when
heterogeneous groups of humans inhabit the same geographical area.

~~~
amiga-workbench
I'm totally for migration, but at a level where we can adequately integrate
the people we bring in.

I want to make sure everybody has the support they need and conversely I want
the state to make sure the people coming in are acting in the best interests
of the country.

Is this really such a far-right fringe position to have?

~~~
toasterlovin
Seems pretty reasonable to me, but then I am also of the opinion that 0
immigration should be the starting point in discussions of immigration (rather
than “as much as possible”, which seems to have somehow become the default
position).

~~~
18pfsmt
I believe the perception that the immigration policy is "as much as possible"
doesn't reflect reality. Many in the west feel it is the humane thing to offer
immigrants in war torn ME an opportunity for a better life considering the
selfish meddling the West has been involved in WRT ME policy for the last 100
years (think Sykes-Picot, which carved the ME up for UK/France ends).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement)

~~~
defen
Countries that had nothing whatsoever to do with Sykes-Picot or the Middle
East also feel compelled to import huge numbers of people, so that is not the
most parsimonious explanation, unless you think e.g. contemporary Sweden &
Norway are somehow responsible for the actions of the UK & France 100 years
ago.

------
Vaskivo
How much of it is "just perception" and not actually true?

The mainstream and social media can amplify negative sentiments, which
propagate between people. This leads to a bad assessment of reality.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'd say "almost all", and this is actually the place where perception
_becomes_ the reality, for all practical purposes. Society being polarized,
vs. everyone believing the society is polarized and acting accordingly, is
equivalent in practice.

That's why I believe media people - both mainstream and social - are being
dangerously irresponsible my sharing every possible polarizing bullshit to
maximize ad clicks. And I mean "dangerously" as in "could cause significant
loss of life at some point".

------
contourtrails
In regards to immigration issues, the best long term solution is to build up
Middle Eastern nations as productive societies capable of providing a
comfortable life for their citizens.

Consider the US's Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe post WW2. Western
nations must partner in a concerted effort to build up Middle Eastern nations,
rather than funding destructive and chaos inducing wars and revolutions.

~~~
pjc50
They tried that in Iraq, and ran out of money a trillon dollars later without
addressing any of the real problems.

------
mrmekon
*according to a poll of 500-1000 people per country

~~~
opportune
Which is a huge sample size

~~~
TeMPOraL
Is it? Sounds pretty small to me.

(Also, given it's an on-line poll, I have some doubts about whether the
sampled population is representative in any way.)

~~~
opportune
[http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-
sample-...](http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-sample-size-
affects-the-margin-of-error/)

~~~
TeMPOraL
I'm not a statistician, but I have this feeling that this applies primarily
when you're testing for simple things from an uniform population - not for a
complex factor which has more possible spurious correlations involved than the
number of samples you're taking. So I wouldn't have 95% confidence in a result
of a politics poll on 1000 people per country.

(Also, there's selection bias involved, including self-selection if the poll
was voluntary. I generally don't trust voluntary opt-in polls much, as it's
too easy to get bullshit results from them, and I don't often see people even
realizing this.)

EDIT: the poll authors do claim that their results are representative of the
nation in _some_ countries:

"16 of the 27 countries surveyed generate nationally representative samples in
their countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great
Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Serbia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden,
and United States). Brazil, Chile, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey produce a national sample that
is considered to represent a more affluent, connected population. These are
still a vital social group to understand in these countries, representing an
important and emerging middle class."

[https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-global-survey-
wor...](https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/bbc-global-survey-world-
divided)

------
Overtonwindow
A question for everyone: Would a delay in the open borders element have
helped? For instances a gradual transition, with restrictions, gradually over
several years moving towards full openeness?

~~~
showsover
Some restrictions pertaining to integration would help.

Being able to speak the language within your first year in a new country helps
integration and lessens the us-vs-them feeling. Ideally people wouldn't mind
hearing a different language, but unfortunately we're not that tolerant yet.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
> Being able to speak the language within your first year in a new country
> helps integration and lessens the us-vs-them feeling.

Not sure what you're talking about. I'm been to Italy and Germany many times
and never felt unwelcome for not speaking their language.

~~~
mfoy_
Visiting, or living.... there's a different standard applied to guests than to
neighbours.

~~~
fwdpropaganda
If you're an Italian guy and we meet on the street and I don't speak Italian,
how would you know if I'm visiting or living?

EDIT: Before you respond that "immigration policy etc etc", notice that the
post I was responding to was talking about interations between individuals
(using phrases like "ideally people wouldn't mind hearing a different
language"), not policy.

~~~
dazc
I've found in different countries within the EU that attitudes change
dramatically to foreigners once you go beyond the centres of major cities or
tourist areas. This is true even in Ireland where the only language barrier is
an accent.

Maybe this is what he means by the distinction of living/visiting?

