Blut posted:

The Erasmus program will always operate on a limited budget. So they can either: 1) pay a huge grant to cover rent in London or Paris, but as a result have to severely restrict numbers enrolled in the program to afford supporting smaller numbers of students to live in these most expensive cities in Europe. Or 2) pay a reasonable grant that covers rent in most European university cities, and offer it to vastly more people. Let people who want to pay more to live in very expensive locations opt to do so from their own resources.

To be clear, I started this by arguing for a massive increase in funding for Erasmus. And the grant should also be increased, somewhat. But arguing that the program should pay for students to live in some of the literally 10 most expensive places on the continent is ridiculous.

Libluini posted:

Hopefully we can get our EU-army up and running before that happens.

painted into a coroner posted:

You're arguing around the point here. I'm specifically talking about students with poorer backgrounds being relegated to "less popular" courses and areas specifically because of the cost involved. Nowhere were either me or mortons making an argument that everyone would flock to the most expensive places. Yes, they would see an uptick, but to assume that these universities could facilitate all these students, is incorrect. Places will be limited, as I'm sure they are right now. Once those places are filled then people will spill over into other areas. This will also assume that people will go to these smaller institutions because they have a course that specifically relates to them.

By opening the system to those from poorer backgrounds you allow those from disadvantaged areas to access institutions that they would not be able to under any other circumstances, and it may (hard may) put those with means to attend courses in areas that aren't as glamorous, opening them up to different experiences. I admit, this is a utopian thought process, but why should we not aim for that?

Regardless, you are arguing cost when the EU is supposedly the third to fourth largest economy in the world. The length of the stay is usually one semester but is capped at one academic year. The EU has the funds or it can raise them. To assume their hands are completely tied when it comes to cost is blind to the reality.

mortons stork posted:

First off, good reading comprehension, really nice catching that whole 'it was not an issue for me, but I can see why Erasmus is problematic for non-privileged backgrounds.' I was thinking that ideas like 'the contribution should scale to cost of living' were fairly uncontroversial, since the point of having a free-movement programme, combined with the merit-based selection, would be that people actually get to choose where to go, instead of being free to move, but no, not there actually. That is what makes it a privileged-people thing, it's letting social class get in the way of actual full accessibility.

E: to catch the edit: the EU could stand to increase funding of the Erasmus programme, since it will literally the one thing standing between it and dissolution in a few years' time.

The EU could throw more money into the thing that is forming actual European citizens and shoring up its base of support for when push comes to shove and half of the states in it have gone full fash, or it could just neolib itself into oblivion. I know in my heart of hearts that they have already chosen, but it'd at least be nice to talk about how it could be done.

painted into a coroner posted:

You're arguing around the point here. I'm specifically talking about students with poorer backgrounds being relegated to "less popular" courses and areas specifically because of the cost involved. Nowhere were either me or mortons making an argument that everyone would flock to the most expensive places. Yes, they would see an uptick, but to assume that these universities could facilitate all these students, is incorrect. Places will be limited, as I'm sure they are right now. Once those places are filled then people will spill over into other areas. This will also assume that people will go to these smaller institutions because they have a course that specifically relates to them.

By opening the system to those from poorer backgrounds you allow those from disadvantaged areas to access institutions that they would not be able to under any other circumstances, and it may (hard may) put those with means to attend courses in areas that aren't as glamorous, opening them up to different experiences. I admit, this is a utopian thought process, but why should we not aim for that?

Regardless, you are arguing cost when the EU is supposedly the third to fourth largest economy in the world. The length of the stay is usually one semester but is capped at one academic year. The EU has the funds or it can raise them. To assume their hands are completely tied when it comes to cost is blind to the reality.

fishmech posted:

Forcing poor Erasmus participants to clump together in the poorer cities across Europe is secretly a brilliant scheme to produce an internationalist pan-European class conscious intelligentsia.

V. Illych L. posted:

literally* emptyquoting fishmech itt who would've thought it

Cat Mattress posted:

I'm not sure why you want it, what you expect it to be able to prevent (a new war between countries?) but let me laugh at the prospect.

Marxist-Jezzinist posted:

Blut posted:

Mortons literally listed Paris, Barcelona and "the most expensive country in the Eurzone" as his examples of places Erasmus should fund students to study in. And you're using Ireland as your baseline. So yes, exactly some of the most expensive places in Europe to live in.

You're arguing in favour of a "utopian thought process" for a program with an unlimited budget. How can you call anything blind to reality? In the real world, even with massively increased funding, Erasmus will always have a set budget. And by giving appropriate funding for participants to study in literally the most expensive locations on the continent, it will cost a multiple of others their places in alternative reasonably priced towns.

Reducing the numbers of students enrolled on the program massively (as would be required to fund cities like Paris or London adequately) would drastically reduce the number of people from poorer backgrounds enrolled, not increase their access.

There is no problem with "places being limited" in other universities, huge numbers of universities exist in towns where 300eur covers most, or all, of the average rent. The vast majority of universities in Europe operate in locations were funding of 500eur a month would cover rent. These are not "smaller institutions", or second-rate institutions. But this would still be too low for London or Paris, so is presumably an unacceptable level of support?

fishmech posted:

Forcing poor Erasmus participants to clump together in the poorer cities across Europe is secretly a brilliant scheme to produce an internationalist pan-European class conscious intelligentsia.

V. Illych L. posted:

also i will laugh and laugh if you end up with a euro-army, on the condition that its working language is french

it would be the most eu thing

Orange Devil posted:

Nothing bad will come from providing France with cannon fodder to burn in African colonialist ventures.

Orange Devil posted:

What if the EU army has different units with different languages and only all the officers need to speak French?

Austro-Hungary 2: Austro-Hungary Harder

Rappaport posted:

I don't really like the EU that much but this would be the greatest thing since someone invented the Eurovision contest

Tesseraction posted:

The rage of the Germans alone would make my day.

Cat Mattress posted:

You won't have any truly meaningful measure taken to unify European defense until European countries become convinced that they cannot rely on the USA for protection anymore. Even the very limited babysteps we have now have been toned down compared to initial proposals by countries afraid that they would "compete with NATO", which sounds extremely stupid until you understand what they really mean by it.

Sulla Faex posted:

What's that joke about heaven and hell? The Germans can provide the food, and the Italians the generals

feedmegin posted:

It's worth noting, btw, that for all their recent talk about Europe not pulling its weight, the US has also tended to throw its toys out of the pram whenever the EU talked too much about organising its own defence organisations. The US is in charge in NATO and that's the way they like it.

Tesseraction posted:

The rage of the Germans alone would make my day.

painted into a coroner posted:

Increased funding =/= unlimited funding. You make the argument that nearly everyone will flock to Erasmus when you might just see double the numbers. Lots of people just don't want to travel to a different country for college - they're homebirds, they don't care for the program, they already work in their home country, they have family commitments, ect ect ect. Nobody here is advocating mandatory Erasmus semesters, simply improving the conditions for those who wish to avail of the program as it currently stands. the Furthermore, nobody here is arguing that people should not go to smaller universities in less prestigious areas. The argument being made is that for some this could be their only chance to get a """respected""" name on their CV. Society should meet the needs of those most vulnerable in society first and foremost.

quote:

Personally, I'm tired of your argument that rent is the be all and end all when it comes to cost. I'm a student right now and all my bills are separate from rent. The cost of an apartment may be X amount, but does that include electricity, internet, heating, air conditioning, water, food, travel? Student loans they already have? For many students, the aspect of just getting a job alongside college is not ideal, and for many unworkable. That's before you factor in any potential language barriers.

I don't understand why you are so adamant that this is a harsh cost to the EU. Again, it is a powerful economy and can find ways of funding it. In "the real world" you can raise taxes, divert funding, lobby institutions to reduce rates for Erasmus students. You argue that there is just nothing we can do when there is a wealth of avenues the EU can take to address it.

Sulla Faex posted:

What's that joke about heaven and hell? The Germans can provide the food, and the Italians the generals

quote:

The European model is based on the freedom of man and the diversity of opinions and creation. Our first freedom is democratic freedom: the freedom to choose our leaders as foreign powers seek to influence our vote at each election. I propose creating a European Agency for the Protection of Democracies, which will provide each Member State with European experts to protect their election process against cyber attacks and manipulation. In this same spirit of independence, we should also ban the funding of European political parties by foreign powers. We should have European rules banish all incitements to hate and violence from the Internet, since respect for the individual is the bedrock of our civilisation of dignity.

quote:

Founded on internal reconciliation, the European Union has forgotten to look at the realities of the world. Yet no community can create a sense of belonging if it does not have bounds that it protects. The boundary is freedom in security. We therefore need to rethink the Schengen area: all those who want to be part of it should comply with obligations of responsibility (stringent border controls) and solidarity (one asylum policy with the same acceptance and refusal rules). We will need a common border force and a European asylum office, strict control obligations and European solidarity to which each country will contribute under the authority of a European Council for Internal Security. On the issue of migration, I believe in a Europe that protects both its values and its borders.

The same standards should apply to defence. Substantial progress has been made in the last two years, but we need to set a clear course: a treaty on defence and security should define our fundamental obligations in association with NATO and our European allies: increased defence spending, a truly operational mutual defence clause, and the European Security Council with the United Kingdom on board to prepare our collective decisions.

quote:

Our borders also need to guarantee fair competition. What power in the world would accept continued trade with those who respect none of their rules? We cannot suffer in silence. We need to reform our competition policy and reshape our trade policy with penalties or a ban in Europe on businesses that compromise our strategic interests and fundamental values such as environmental standards, data protection and fair payment of taxes; and the adoption of European preference in strategic industries and our public procurement, as our American and Chinese competitors do.

quote:

Europe is not a second-rank power. Europe in its entirety is a vanguard: it has always defined the standards of progress. In this, it needs to drive forward a project of convergence rather than competition: Europe, where social security was created, needs to introduce a social shield for all workers, east to west and north to south, guaranteeing the same pay in the same workplace, and a minimum European wage appropriate to each country and discussed collectively every year.

Getting back on track with progress also concerns spearheading the ecological cause. Will we be able to look our children in the eye if we do not also clear our climate debt? The European Union needs to set its target – zero carbon by 2050 and pesticides halved by 2025 – and adapt its policies accordingly with such measures as a European Climate Bank to finance the ecological transition, a European food safety force to improve our food controls and, to counter the lobby threat, independent scientific assessment of substances hazardous to the environment and health. This imperative needs to guide all our action: from the Central Bank to the European Commission, from the European budget to the Investment Plan for Europe, all our institutions need to have the climate as their mandate.

quote:

Progress and freedom are about being able to live from your work: Europe needs to look ahead to create jobs. This is why it needs not only to regulate the digital giants by putting in place European supervision of the major platforms (prompt penalties for unfair competition, transparent algorithms, etc.), but also to finance innovation by giving the new European Innovation Council a budget on a par with the United States in order to spearhead new technological breakthroughs such as artificial intelligence.

quote:

A world-oriented Europe needs to look towards Africa, with which we should enter into a covenant for the future, taking the same road and ambitiously and non-defensively supporting African development with such measures as investment, academic partnerships and education for girls.

Cat Mattress posted:

.
This Earth-shattering "NEIN" you just heard came from Germany, Europe's champion in coal-fired plants and pesticides.

Cat Mattress posted:

This Earth-shattering "NEIN" you just heard came from Germany, Europe's champion in coal-fired plants and pesticides.

BabyFur Denny posted:

I think Germany with its promise to turn off all coal plants within two decades is actually well ahead of Macrons plan there.

D. Ebdrup posted:

On Jan 26, 2019: Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy.

Andrast posted:

I'll believe it when I see it

Truga posted:

Germans are burning incredible amounts of natgas these days IIRC, because it's cheaper to buy and fuel a natgas generator for your industrial facility than pay for electricity.

Gort posted:

Natural gas only accounts for 10% of their electricity according to this.

Wind: 27.6%
Brown coal: 19.9%
Hard coal: 14.4%
Uranium: 13.3%
Gas: 10.3%
Biomass: 7.5%
Solar: 3.5%
Hydro: 3%

Might be their solution is to buy electricity from coal and nuclear neighbours when the wind isn't blowing.

Private Speech posted:

I like how that chart makes lignite brown coal look less scary than hard coal.