M: Then I would like to start with the following question, what are the first three thoughts you think of when you hear the European Union or the EU? You can take a minute to think, you can take a piece of paper or open an empty Word document and write down your thoughts. Always ask me to repeat the question if you have a hard time hearing!

(long pause)

FIFG3_F3: I'm ready, should I explain why I think as I do [laughter]?

M: You can start by telling us and then we'll check {if necessary to motivate}.

FIFG3_F3: Okay, first is cooperation and security. Then I thought it feels like it's {the EU} long away but still nearby. Far away, I think, because you may not have such a strong connection to the EU, or, like, what they do, just like ordinary citizens, you may not think much about it. But nearby because it's geographically close.

M: Okay, thank you. Do you want to briefly explain what you mean by cooperation, is it the financial cooperation you are thinking about, or something specific you are thinking about?

FIFG3_F3: Maybe the economic and political cooperation and all that. Maybe you have some trust in the other countries or something like that [laugh].

M: Okay, thank you.

(short pause)

FIFG3_M2: I can go on. The first one that came to mind is freedom of movement. The second was the market cooperation, that's perhaps a bit of the wrong word, but I think you get my point. And last is climate packages that have been on the agenda in recent years, a lot of discussions about it.

M: Thank you!

FIFG3_M4: I can go next. I came to think of the euro, the European community {unity} and the ECB.

M: Thank you very much, would you like to briefly explain what you mean by European community?

FIFG3_M4: That we somehow belong together, all the countries in Europe. That we are somehow together.

M: Okay, thank you.

FIFG3_F1: Yes, I had a little bit similar thoughts. The first thing I thought about was this unity, and I am thinking mainly about wanting common directives and things like that for the countries. I was thinking about this freedom of movement. Especially when it's about work and housing/living, and then I thought... I don't really have a word for this, but it feels like the European Union is a bit like a superior for the governments of the member states. It is simply a higher authority.

M: Okay, thanks for all the answers. Let's move on. Then I would like to ask how you would describe your overall opinion and attitude towards the European Union.

(long pause)

FIFG3_F1: If no one else wants to start... Overall, in fact, I have always been in favor of the European Union. Considering that you have free movement and trade and more common things that make it easier to engage in cooperation between states. Or, for example, that you have common standards for accounting and such things all sorts of things wherever it can come. You make it easier for people or for trade. But then there are some things that you sometimes think about... Right now, it is this fiscal policy that is on the agenda given the stock prices right now and so, you are thinking a little about how {EU} they will act. So, I think you're something... Your attitude simply is affected by what comes in the news. But overall, positive about it {EU}.

FIFG3_F3: I agree with FIFG3_F1. I am also in favor {for the EU}. Now it has come to light, when you discuss like this, new things, where I am positive towards, just like this freedom of movement. But also, positive because somehow it feels safe to have the support of several countries and the EU, in case there are any conflicts. So positive, or perhaps more neutral. I may not know all the things that the European Union is doing.

FIFG3_M2: I'd be happy to continue if it is okay. I agree with both pretty much. I don't know so much about when it comes to conflicts. The European Union has nothing with protection to do in that sense. Macron recently announced that he wants some sort of security pact within the EU. But if you want protection militarily, then NATO is the one. Finns' views on NATO have become more positive recently. Otherwise, I am quite neutral to the EU. Because the European Union has a lot of advantages, I do not think that Finland would do well without the European Union with these market aspects in mind. Finland is a very small country and trade agreements are important. Freedom of movement binds us to Europe and that was one of Finland's biggest goals originally. Getting closer to the West, away from the Soviet Union and Russia. But then you also have to be a little careful. Because there are people in the EU who would like to see the European Union take more power and decide more over the member states than it does today. For example, climate packages and these, have been a bit problematic, in regards with what Finland should do with its forests. Things that might work in Germany, do not work in Finland. And the same with forest policy, Finland is very modern and has extensive experience with that industry. But now somehow Finland's forests are to be used as carbon sinks, if I understood correctly, and the rules would slow Finland down. And that's problematic from our perspective, from a forest industry perspective. So, to sum up, quite neutral, there are very good things, but you should be a little bit careful as well.

FIFG3_M4: I agree, for the most part, I am in favor. That free movement is particularly good, and then the euro and the free market, free internal market is good. Then what is negative, the European Union can be a bit bureaucratic, and things move a quite slowly. Sometimes nothing really happens.

M: Yes, thank you. Maybe you were already a little into this. But if someone were to claim that EU membership has been beneficial for Finland, what benefits would you list? Many had this already in their previous answer, but you are welcome to motivate or come up with something new.

FIFG3_M2: I can begin... Can you say the question again, I'll got a bit lost.

M: If someone claimed that the EU membership has been beneficial to our country, what benefits would you list?

FIFG3_M2: At least the first 10 years. Because then Finland started to become a more global player and was playing with the big boys, so to speak. And President Koivisto also said that it is better to be part of a larger whole and influence decisions than to be completely outside and then end up adapting.

M: Thank you!

(long pause)

FIFG3_M4: I would say it has benefited. It has benefited Finland economically. Especially the first ten years, relatively large growth {after} we joined the EU. But then the financial crisis led to more problems than benefits.

M: Thank you!

FIFG3_F1: I don't have very different opinions. I agree with what the other two have said so far. Simply that Finland gets a bigger voice, than they would otherwise get as a small player, so that's very good. That you can express your opinions. It is perhaps the case that there are not as many as… it is a very low turnout I think, If I remember correctly most often when there are EU elections. But having the places there are good {in the [European] Parliament} that way, you can make an impact. But then, overall, being part of the community probably benefits working conditions and the ability to study, being able to move between countries, and travelling is made easier. The trade aspect, it's a big plus, you're a small country.

FIFG3_F3: Yes, I'm thinking a little bit along the same lines as FIFG3_FI. Finland, or I personally, benefit from being able to move freely and travel and work abroad. And in a way it becomes maybe good to have that freedom so that you are not on the outside and so on, the {political} influence is also important. But then I think that FIFG3_F1 mentioned low turnout or voting issues with EU elections, it is very much because there is not so much knowledge about it, because it feels for many ordinary citizens far away, things that relate to the European Union. I feel that too, you understand why the turnout is low.

[00:15:10]

M: Thank you very much for your comments! If we then turn the cake around and say that the European Union's membership has been unfavorable to Finland, what disadvantages would you list? You may have already mentioned this a little in your previous two answers, but if anyone has something left to add, please do it.

FIFG3_M2: The first thing I think about is bureaucracy. And that money fly away to a larger institution, a whole new bureaucratic entity that eats money like a hungry five-year-old on candy Friday. And then this regarding the principle of subsidiarity to some extent, that decisions are taken long and further away from the citizens. In the end, they {the citizens} should decide everything in a democracy in one way or the other. Then I had something else, but I can say it when I remember.

M: Yes, do that.

FIFG3_F1: FIFG3_M2 mentioned money and things like that, that's the position of the euro. Our currency is very dependent on the other member states. If there are some who are very indebted, it can affect this common fiscal policy. And then they can affect us too, very much. So yes, it can be beneficial if everything is well [laughter], but it can also be... even if you do not have such big problem yourself, you may end up taking and carrying some other member states' problems.

FIFG3_M2: I remembered what I forgot to say. Countries are sovereign states and that it may restrict state sovereignty when an EU law must be complied with. It is called the principle of loyalty or something like that. That laws must be passed that support the objective set by the European Union. And this restricts the country's sovereign right to decide over itself and its territories.

FIFG3_M4: I don’t come up with any disadvantages other than those I already mentioned. After the financial crisis, this monetary union {EMU} came about, which has made the {economic} recovery a little slower than it otherwise could have been.

FIFG3_F3: I don’t have much to add either. But I think this ignorance when citizens don't really know what is being decided and exactly what it is about. So, I think it's pretty unfavorable because you might not be so interested in finding out what things mean and stuff like that. It just feels like important people are in charge and you don't know much about it.

M: Thank you for your comments! Let's move on to the following section. I want you to imagine that there is a large-scale natural disaster like an earthquake, a flood or a forest fire in an EU country. How do you think the European Union as an institution should react in this case?

(long pause)

FIFG3_M4: I can start. That you would get financial and humanitarian aid to the country quite quickly.

FIFG3_F3: I'm thinking the same. If necessary, that other countries can help with such things. But maybe... Yes, quick help if that is needed.

FIFG3_F1: I also think it is important that the burden of helping does not end up just in the nearby areas, that it should be distributed evenly. Even if it is quick help, if it requires more from some neighboring country and so on, that country should then be supported later. Everyone simply takes care of their part.

M: If I may quickly ask you, do you think everyone has a responsibility to help because we are all part of the EU? Is that where shared responsibility comes from?

FIFG3_F1: Yes, I think that. That if... if the directive comes from the European Union or the decision that we as a union should deal with this crisis in a certain way, then everyone who is part of the union should also be treated equally to have equal responsibility for the whole crisis.

M: Thank you.

FIFG3_M2: I'm on the same page as the others. But I would not want the European Union paying any money directly to that country, we have pretty good humanitarian organizations across the EU. For example, the Red Cross. So, what I would support is that the European Union would pay an extra sum to them {the Red Cross} while encouraging private fundraising. Take, for example, the “tongåvan” {charity program on Finnish radio that raises money for a various of purposes} that comes on Friday here, they usually raise money for various purposes, via their program. And in that way raise money, to activate people. I would say that instead of taking money from the revenues from the countries, because that money is needed elsewhere. You can try to get the people activated instead {to raise money}.

M: Thank you! Then we continue with the same question {regarding the natural disaster} how do you think other countries should react? To make the question more specific, do you think a specific country should do more compared to others? Or should everyone help just as much, or just as little?

[00:22:23]

FIFG3_M4: I would say, in proportion to the size of the country, economically and how much people there live and so on.

FIFG3_F3: I agree, I don't see that it would be equal if everyone would help the same amount. Not everyone has the same conditions to help. But I also don't know how to divide, or by what scale you would divide {the help}, is it based on size, population or economy of the country?

M: But if I still understand you correctly, you think it would be right if the larger countries help more because they have the muscles to do it.

FIFG3_F3: Yes, but I don't know how to make that distribution {who helps and how much}.

M: Okay, thank you.

FIFG3_M2: I would stand by my old answer in this case. But if it is Finland that is exposed, I would certainly think that Sweden, Denmark and also Norway even though they do not belong to the EU, that they would come and help Finland. Because Finland is part of another community, that is, the Nordic region. That is also the most clever way. If the aid comes from nearby countries and that those countries can in such cases and their humanitarian organizations, or already in Finland, receive the money instead, it will help there on the spot in a different way. That would be the most cost-effective, I would say.

FIFG3_F1: Yes, I think that everyone has a responsibility, but that, how much you should help with, that is another question. That's... I can't say exactly how to distribute it so that it would be completely fair. But maybe the question was here, yes, I think FIFG3_M2 action plan was very good. But then it's a little bit about how urgent it is, how quickly you get things handled. Do you have to... from where you quickly take money and solve the situation, how would you put it, that you sort out the situation after the most acute danger is over. If there is anything that requires it.

M: Thank you! Then I would like you to still think about this large-scale natural disaster that has just happened in an EU country, how do you think Finland should react in this situation? You may have already commented on this but please elaborate.

FIFG3_F3: Now I do not know if the European Union has an emergency plan, but if they have, it would be easiest for everyone to follow that emergency plan, so you know how to act.

M: But if we make it difficult and say that the European Union does not have an emergency plan, how do you think Finland should act? Do you have any comment, you can also stay by your answer.

FIFG3_F3: I have no idea. But maybe I'd say to watch and see what everyone else does [laughter].

M: Okay, thank you.

FIFG3_M4: I would say that how Finland acts depends on what happens, if it happens close to Finland, then faster. If it is in Southern Europe, there is no point in starting to rush there, check the situation first, and then check what the situation is.

M: So, you think that the affected country's neighbors should first come to help, because they are geographically closest?

FIFG3_M4: Yes, it's easier.

M: Okay.

FIFG3_F3: I was going to say that then it feels like if natural disasters always happens in a country, it will be a little unequal, that those who are always closest must help. But I don't know if there is a better plan, geographically it is easiest if those who are closest help.

FIFG3_M2: I have a difficult… because it is about the EU, but how would Finland react as part of the EU, Finland would not react in a certain way. It is still the European Union as an institution, Finland has its representatives there, so they are the ones who act. But Finland at parliament or the government level does nothing in this situation. But if you mean what Finland as a country itself would do, then it is up to the government what they decide to do, if it is to gather {financial aid}... But I don't think they would, it goes to private collections of various kinds, that is usually the case. I don't think the government here would do anything and I think I would agree with their decision. There are private actors there, Finland is already paying quite a lot of money in relation to what we get out from there {the EU}, purely from an economic perspective. Then to add more money if there is a natural disaster… then the European Union must priorities its money so that it has {money to spare}, but Finland should do nothing more as a private country, if something happens.

FIFG3_F1: I agree a little bit there. You usually wait and see what directives come and act according to the directives. "Now we need that kind of help", so you help in that way. But to start taking the initiative yourself and start doing own things, I don’t think there is a point as long as the crisis management within the European Union works as it should. If it goes quickly there {within the EU}, it shouldn't be necessary. But of course, if it takes a too long it comes down to the individual countries... but it should not, or I think it should work so that the European Union takes the decision first, then you follow those lines.

M: Yes, thank you very much.

FIFG3_M2: Can I add something, or would you like to move on?

M: Absolutely!

FIFG3_M2: On the other hand, if it would be {a natural disaster} in a European Union country, or in a Nordic country or in the nearby region. It would most likely be a much greater demand from the population to help that country because you feel a different kind of solidarity with those who are closest. Take Sweden, if something were to happen, not civil war but something like that, I'm pretty sure quite many Finns would take arms and go there. But I don't think that would happen if there was a civil war in Germany, maybe, but I don't think so. Geography matters because it is about the solidarity of the people.

M: Solidarity, if I understood you correctly, is then strongest with the neighboring countries, or around the neighboring countries, so the Nordic region for us.

[FIFG3_M2 nods = yes]

M: Then we go to the second the last question for this segment, if there was a need to send a crisis management team, for example, firefighters and doctors, do you think Finland should do it. Who should cover the costs of the aid that we send?

[00:31:44]

(short pause)

FIFG3_F1: I think it depends on how much support there will be. The same case as before, that we think about how to allocate the responsibility. Will there be a request to send a certain amount of people or is it the case that you get to choose how much you assist with. Because if you get to choose yourself, then the threshold is probably higher for someone to help. If you think about what you want to achieve, then it would be better if you have a certain plan, that “according to this distribution everyone should take and contribute so and so many people, or with so much help”. In such cases, it should perhaps be discussed afterwards and possibly included in future payments shared by member states, or if there is in the annual budget a crisis cash that is enough. So that member states do not start paying outside the EU budget, for such things. Because they do not have… there is no government or parliament that plans, “that now in our annual budget we should include that there is some natural disaster in another country”.

M: Thank you.

FIFG3_M4: I would also say that if you send something that it would be reasonable that it is not too expensive. Little help that will not generate a big cost is okay. It is perhaps good training for them {the crisis group} if then something happens in Finland, they have some experience.

FIFG3_M2: Yes, who will bear the costs? It depends if it's... if the European Union requests that it be sent {the help}, who is responsible for the costs... I assume then that the European Union does not want to bear the costs themselves. However, I would say that it is the European Union that should bear the costs plus voluntary activities, and I support that quite a long way. Voluntary activities are important for these kinds of things, which are not really included in what the European Union or a state must do. On the other hand, if a government in a country decides to spare a sum of money, then sure. This however leads to cuts elsewhere. And maybe they won't get as much political support next time and they might not want that, because it's all about politics. So, it is the European Union that should stand for it {the cost}, conclusion, the country will not stand for it. The European Union and voluntary organizations.

FIFG3_F3: I agree with FIFG3_M2 that the European Union should stand for it, or if they cannot, it should be divided evenly between the member states. But then regarding sending help, there should be a plan for that, who sends and how to... or at least know how much you are able to send and communicate it to the EU. But it should come as a directive from the EU, who sends and what and not "hey who wants to send". Then you don't know who's taking responsibility.

M: Thank you. Then the last question, do you feel that you personally have a responsibility to help in such a situation {large-scale natural disaster}.

FIFG3_F3: I feel like yes, if I can help, I think I would. But you may not be able to help with all.

FIFG3_F1: I think it's also a bit about that, how close it is, if something were to happen in Sweden and it would happen that people would end up fleeing to Finland because of it and need somewhere to live. So, if you could help out in a practical way, then absolutely, then I think it is the right thing to do. Then if there is something that is going on very far away and you have no knowledge or tools to help, except money, then I feel less responsibility. It's more about what resources you have at hand. That what you are able to offer, if you can help, then it feels more like you should.

FIFG3_M2: I think it's quite interesting actually. I'd say no. The question is whether I feel any responsibility to help, no, I have no responsibility to help personally. But I pay a lot of taxes when I live and work in Finland. So, I help if the state decides to support with the state's money, remember the state has no money it is always the people's money. If the government pays a sum there {to the affected country}, then you have helped out in that way. It is interesting… in Sweden there have been similar experiments with immigration, to increase it. There were 20 people they interviewed, all the people said 'yes', we should all help, we should be humane. But then when it came to the question that “can you help out yourself” then everyone's answer, except for one, was that "it is not a good time right now". So, my conclusion is that it is interesting when you look at the whole, you often think that we should help, but then when it comes down to yourself to help, it becomes more difficult/vague. This was a bit off topic, but my answer is no, no more than I already do.

M: Okay!

FIFG3_M4: I would say that I don't feel like I have any responsibility to help. But if I could and wanted to help, I might do it. As long as it is not too difficult. But I feel no responsibility that I must help.

M: Is it financial help you're mostly thinking about there? Or would you even be willing to go to Sweden and put out forest fires?

FIFG3_M4: No, financial help.

[00:40:01]

M: Okay, thank you. We will move on unless someone has something else to add. Let's go on to the following scenario. Then I would like to ask you if an economic crisis, such as the euro crisis, happens again, and some countries are hit harder than others, how should Finland react?

(long pause)

FIFG3_M4: I don't know if Finland can react alone. It has to come from the ECB, the central bank, from which there is a reaction. I do not think that Finland should start doing anything.

M: Finland should then do nothing without EU directives or permission?

FIFG3_M4: Yes, that's right. The central bank does that part, it is perhaps best if the member states do not act on their own.

FIFG3_F1: What I... Yes, it is the ECB, but you can always try to lobby from Finland for different decisions. But personally, it does... Finland is also a small player. But at some stage, if it has a very negative impact on the Finnish economy. For example, that the ECB would take a decision to save the member states that are most vulnerable, it feels that at some stage it is not enough. You can't sacrifice all the economies in the euro area because some are doing really poorly. Now we are talking about the financial crisis, and it affects all countries of course. But in any case, I think that we should try to take measures within the European Union that do not... pull them all down because of some... Try to make the best of the situation for as many as possible. Finland alone cannot do much.

M: If I may just ask you quickly, you mean that the European Union should be prepared to let some countries fall to save the others so that the whole ship does not sink. If the situation were actually so bad.

FIFG3_F1: If it's really bad… there are certain standards you have to meet to be involved {in the EU}. I'm just thinking, well [laughter] that's maybe a little unpopular opinion but anyway.

FIFG3_M2: Can you repeat the question again?

M: If an economic crisis, or a similar crisis as in 2009-2010, happens again and some countries are hit harder than others, how should Finland react?

FIFG3_M2: Finland can't do much. Finland is a small part of a large market. Was it FIFG3_M4 who studies economics or whoever it was? Quite in the beginning {of the studies} you go through, policy rates and such and the ECB's interest rates. And only they can really do it. I do not know what Finland can do, other than to stimulate or not stimulate their spending of money. But I don't think it would help those countries. But if those countries have put themselves in that shitty situation, then they can sink with the ship.

FIFG3_F3: I agree with what has been said. That Finland may not be able to do much. And then I agree FIFG3_F1 that it is perhaps better to let some country sink than for everyone to sink, instead of helping a country that is doing badly in a way. I don't know if the point with the EU is that just because one is in a shit situation, everyone is in a shit situation [laughter]. I feel more that the European Union should help, but then perhaps we should also help the countries that are doing poorly... I don't know, it's a difficult question.

M: Thank you, I just want to get back to FIFG3_M2 comment quickly. If I understood you correctly if the country itself has put it in that situation, they will have to pay the bill themselves, but if we say that the ECB's poor monetary policy has caused the situation, then the union should share the responsibility.

FIFG3_M2: I could probably sign that. Because, as I understand it, there are some countries in the European Union that may not be taking so good care of their economy as well as they could. And as the anti-EU Finns Party often highlights, Greece's taxation system sucks very effectively, in a bad way. In the world's least corrupt country, Finland, which has an effective tax collection, should then come and help and pay for Greece because their system does not work, is not okay. But if the ECB or the European Union take decisions that will make everything go to hell, then it is also the EU's responsibility to solve it. You can correct me if I'm wrong {regarding the Finns party} I've read it, but I don't know if that's true.

M: It might be true, I don't know either. Thanks for the comment. If we then go to the following question and we say that it is Finland that is severely affected, how do you think the other EU countries should act?

FIFG3_M4: They can't do much either. If we are in a bad economic situation, it is due to factors within the country that are not in order, the labor market or something else. I don't know how much it helps to throw money at a fire, it might not really work. If there is a real crisis, starvation, then I think they could start to help a little.

FIFG3_M2: I think I agree with you there. If Finland has gone in for such an economic policy that puts us in a bad position, then the Finnish politicians and the Finnish people will eventually have to wake up, if it takes so long that Finland is economically at a bottom, then let it be so, but you must start waking up. It is like a bad upbringing if you never learn what's wrong, then it has to come as a shock that you realize you can't do it like that, and then you start getting it together. You can't have a protective parent as a guardian angel.

FIFG3_F1: It feels that if other member states are to help, then it is a temporary patch on the wounds. Then we need a new patch every day. If you don't change your behavior, if you still cycle just as carelessly as before that you fall again and again, it doesn't help. Because they can't support Finland for that long either. If it is the case that you really have to help to make sure that you get back on your feet, it is a possibility, I mean it goes both ways, Finland can help, and others can help Finland. But it is not preferable, perhaps rather just that you let it go a little bad for a while but work to make it better. If they're not dealing with any climate issues that causes why the economy would be doing so badly, then it should be possible to improve.

FIFG3_F3: Yes, I think, unless other countries expect Finland to turn up... now you might think they should do it because it is about Finland, whereas the previous issue concerned other countries. So, you might want to say now that other countries should help, but I'm probably sticking to the previous answer we should not get help either if we're in a shitty situation and we've put ourselves there. If we neither help other countries that are in a shitty situation.

M: Then I would just like to briefly ask you all, that since we then helped some Southern European countries during the last crisis, you do not think that they owe us a favor, but rather that it is context-based. That if we have put ourselves in the situation, then we must also stand for it ourselves.

(long pause)

FIFG3_F3: I think its context based because I don't know how long you can feel like you're obligated to help or give a favor. How do you count how long you owe it {the returned favor}.

FIFG3_F1: I think they have quite enough of their debts [laugh]. It will be so long before they could help us back in this case. But if it is those countries that have not yet been plunged into such deep crises... But no, I still think we are sticking to what we have already said. Making up a bill according to the motto "now we have helped them, so now they have to help us" is also not effective.

FIFG3_M4: I don't know how they could help either. After all, there is indirect help from those {countries} through the ECB who gives out a loan, as a central bank is supposed to do.

M: Okay, thanks, let's move on! To the next segment, I would like you to bear in mind that there are inequalities between people and within a country. Should the EU in your opinion have a common programme, or a common fund that reduces inequality in society. You can think about the growing income inequality. If you think "yes", why so, and if you think "no", then why not.

[00:53:46]

FIFG3_M2: No, I don't think so. For this reason, if we now take Finland as a main example. There we have quite ( ) socialism and have had since the beginning of the 20th century to reduce inequalities and such. We have built a system around it and a welfare state. But the problem is that states in a union as large as the EU, are incredibly different. And you have different taxation methods, and you have different rules what you can do and so on. So, the prerequisite if you want an income transfer in such a large area as the European Union would be that the countries are similar, or quite the same and that the same rules apply throughout the EU. Then the problem here is, that do you want a big state like the EU, because that is what it will be in practice. Or do you want the European Union as a union and then that your own member states manage their own populations for themselves in order to maintain the principle of subsidiarity and this. I do not think the European Union should become a state. So, the answer must be no.

FIFG3_M4: I say “no”, too. It would not be reasonable at an EU level. All countries are at different levels, so I do not know how you would set general limits, all countries will probably have to manage it themselves.

FIFG3_F3: I also spontaneously think that each country should handle it themselves. Because it is still something that can be done within the country, so I do not know why the European Union would have to take responsibility for fixing those problems.

FIFG3_F1: Yes, that's... I do not think that there should be a fund to patch up the problems and so on, it is the policies of the countries themselves that it is based on, this issue of income inequality in principle. For example, taxation and things like that have a big effect. And of course, it is also a little about what are the main industries in the countries that affects. But it's also something that... Yes, some countries have comparative advantages in certain products and so on. You cannot pull everyone over the same comb, so to say, and therefore I think this is why it should be adapted according to the regions that exist, in this case the member states. But you cannot really do that at the level of the European Union either. It is something that is done within the countries.

M: Thank you! Let's continue on the same subject. Should the European Union have an EU-wide system for tackling unemployment in all EU countries that would be financed by the member states?

FIFG3_M4: I am perhaps a bit divided on this issue. There are, of course, quite large differences in unemployment. But then you can say if there is a common one {system}, it would more quickly fix other labor markets, for example, in Spain... I'll come back to the question later, I forgot what to say.

FIFG3_M2: I can go on. I would say that it sounds really smart, and you think "wow" now we have to distribute, we have skilled labor here that is needed there and so on, it sounds really good. But we already have that problem in Finland that we have very competent staff and so on. But one of the biggest problems with unemployment and unemployed people, who would like to work, is so-called friction unemployment. That is, the friction between the job seeker finding their workplace is quite difficult to solve on a broad perspective, if it is already on a micro-level. So, I don't see how we could solve it on an international level either. And before we fix it at the micro level, after that we can think about a European Union level. But before that it must work in such a small and modern country as Finland.

FIFG3_F1: I think it might be worth putting that money into more retraining programs {schooling programs}. Often unemployment is due to the fact that there are people who are educated, but there are not exactly the jobs they want. And many end up retraining now, because of, digitization. Their jobs won't exist in a few years. Then perhaps we would rather than pay unemployment aid, or whatever this programme would now cover, I do not know… you'd rather make sure that these people find the workplaces that exist.

[01:00:17]

FIFG3_F3 I think there were already good points here, so I have nothing to add.

M: Okay, have you FIFG3_M4 figured out what you wanted to say before?

FIFG3_M4: Yes, it was this thing, if you were to have a common unemployment aid, it would act as an automatic stabilizer if there were to be any economic negative shock in an EU country. So that it could automatically transfer money there, instead of it going really badly, and that you would have to give loans to them. That there would be an automatic effect. During crises, this would perhaps be beneficial. But in ordinary situations, some countries just have higher unemployment levels than others, and it would be expensive for countries with lower unemployment levels.

M: Maybe we were already a little bit into our next question. But if we reduce the perspective and we say that a specific or individual EU country has a very high unemployment rate, should the European Union try to reduce it? If we are talking about a single country instead of the whole union.

FIFG3_M2: I just have to ask myself, how would that be possible? Let's look at the situation with nurses in Finland a little bit. Then we see that they go to Norway and Sweden and so on. Sweden is at least a European Union country, but what should the European Union do to help with the labor shortage in Finland? Without then gaining totalitarian power over Finland and deciding exactly what the country should do to attract nurses, such as higher wages and such things. As I see it, the European Union cannot do anything. To be able to do something, they must have power over a country, in a way that is not reasonable.

FIFG3_M4: Yes, I agree with FIFG3_M2. They {EU} cannot do anything, it follows the free market. People can go and work wherever they think they have some benefit. You can't start moving people around just because you want to. But of course, the European Union could pay for some major projects in some countries that have high unemployment, infrastructure and such, that could be a possibility. But perhaps I do not think that the European Union should do so.

(short pause)

FIFG3_F1: I probably agree with what has been said already. I don't exactly have any new opinions.

FIFG3_F3: I also agree, if you start moving people because of jobs, then it can happen that people stay there and work, even though you might as a country want them back. For example, with nurses who FIFG3_M2 mentioned, that they might stay there {for good}.

FIFG3_M2: I would like to add to the nurse example. The fact that the European Union is doing anything, that your alone in this matter. It is not impossible to work in Finland, you can do that. But regarding this issue, it is perhaps a good thing that there is competition between countries. Take this discussion about nurses' salaries, it wouldn't have come up if they didn't have the ability to flee the country and work elsewhere. The only way for Finland to do something there is to reprioritize its resources. And I would call that development, I would say that it is a good thing that the European Union cannot or does nothing there.

M: Perhaps you also got a little into this issue, but should Finland try to reduce unemployment in another EU country? Even if it would mean extra costs for us. Then we can also talk about economic costs, but also what FIFG3_M2 mentioned that our workforce is moving away, which may lead to negative effects for us.

FIFG3_M2: We already do. With the nurses, they are educated in Finland and the state pays for it. They go and work to Sweden, Norway, Denmark. This is how we help with unemployment in these countries. The same thing, people go to Germany, they get a higher salary than the Prime Minister if they get a good job at a company.

FIFG3_F1: I think that when it comes to the labor market economy, people move there where there are their best opportunities and best conditions. Where they feel they have enough qualifications and where they simply get better paid. Of course, a few different factors then affect different people. But overall, that Finland would somehow intervene with unemployment in another country, I do not see what they can really do except pay more money, to pay more unemployment support or that they would start supporting a particular country's products more. That you trade more with that country, because you can't… a country wont willingly deteriorates the conditions of its own workers because they want them to move away or send them away voluntarily. Rather, it is that Finland would try to pump more money into the other country's economy, in those sectors so that more jobs are created. But there also the free market governs, the country {Finland} will not so to speak deliberately take and cause extra costs if they get their goods cheaper from elsewhere.

M: Thank you!

FIFG3_M2: It has come up a few times during the discussion, to increase unemployment benefits. But if we are talking about unemployment, it is a statistical fact that lower unemployment benefits increase the employment rate, there is research on it. If you want to reduce unemployment, then you do not want to provide unemployment benefits. You can think what you want about the politics, but that's a fact.

M: Thank you! Does anyone have anything to add? Or should we move on to our final questions? Okay! Today we have discussed the European Union in relation to various areas such as social inequalities and economic issues. Are there other areas that you would say are relevant when talking about the relations and mutual cooperation within the EU?

(long pause)

M: What I at least remember from our first question was that many of you mentioned the climate. At least it seems to be one thing you wanted to raise.

FIFG3_F3: I'm thinking about it now {the climate}, but I feel, there the UN is already taking a huge responsibility to fix that problem. So, I do not know if it would help if the European Union were to do so too, to a larger extent anyway.

FIFG3_M2: I remember mentioning it with the climate package as well. And that is perhaps a semi-problematic area, in my opinion, when it is such a large whole in a... Finland and Sweden with their special assets, so to speak, and Germany with theirs. That the European Union, as a big and broad one {actor} in the climate struggle, decides things for Finland that do not necessarily work. This is something that countries should decide for themselves. Biogas was an example that was not considered by the EU commission to be renewable, but there it is such a dividing line that in Finland it can be said that biogas is carbon neutral. In the way that the biogas produced in Finland, is made by things that would be left and ferment and decay in any case. The same amount of carbon dioxide comes out of biogas use as it would anyway. I remember there was a discussion about this, with the new climate rules.

(long pause)

M: Thank you! Does anyone else want to say something? If not, let's move on to the third last question. How would you say that the areas discussed are linked to Finland's future in the EU?

(short pause)

FIFG3_M2: I think they are connected in this way, that in the future two factions will be formed as society becomes more polarized, as it becomes all the time. One faction wants to see the European Union as a great power and the other wants to see the European Union as it is today. I believe that the European Union will continue to increase its influence until there is a major stop. All the areas we have dealt with today, that the European Union takes more responsibility for social inequalities and so on, so they contribute to giving the European Union more power. And I think there will be a stop at some stage with some kind of conflict of some kind.

M: Thank you! Would anyone like to add something?

FIFG3_M4: Can you repeat the question?

M: How would you say that the areas discussed are linked to Finland's future in the EU? Are they relevant to Finland’s future?

FIFG3_M4: Yes, they are absolutely relevant. There is a lot of talk about the economy and climate. If it becomes economically unprofitable to be part of the EU, then I think you should leave. We don't have infinite of money.

M: Thank you!

(long pause)

M: Did FIFG3_F1 have something to add? I saw that you opened your microphone earlier.

FIFG3_F1: No, I was pretty much on the same line. I think it has been seen in recent years that it divides a little more countries as well whether you want to continue to participate or not to participate. It also depends on how the union develops. Will it be the same in the future as it was when we joined? Or will it develop into something bigger, so to speak, more binding contracts, for Finland. That you take away from your own freedom it will raise some voices, it will divide opinions. If you want to continue to participate and so on, or rather lobby for how this development should go on {the development of the EU}. Right now, it feels like you need to involve more people in this, that you are aware of how you can influence this development. And not only take a stance on something that has already happened, but rather how to act so it goes according to the line you want.

M: Thank you! Do FIFG3_F3 want to say something, or do we move on?

FIFG3_F3: We can move on.

M: Okay, what would be your last comment for the discussion?

(long pause)

FIFG3_F1: I don't know what is expected...

M: Nothing is expected

FIFG3_F1: Overall, it has been interesting to participate. It feels like you don't think about these things in everyday life. As FIFG3_F3 said, I don't sit actively and think about these things, but then you must take a position on it when there is news about it. But that you should perhaps be more active and maybe think more about the questions in a personal context how it affects you. How it affects your future.

FIFG3_M2: I have as the last comment on the discussion, that if the European Union wants to continue, then they must also respect the countries' self-determination right and not come with a big brother's attitude and think that they are something. I would like to say that, and then it has also been interesting to participate. I am not so interested in the European Union otherwise, very uninterested in fact. So, it was good to refresh my knowledge a bit.

M: If FIFG3_F3 and FIFG3_M4 have nothing to add, let's go to the last question. Is there anything you've been thinking about during the discussion that you would still like say before we finish for today?

(long pause)

M: If not, thank you for taking the time to participate today! We talked for about 80 minutes, so it was a good discussion. There were only four of you today, two participants fell away on the road they unfortunately got sick, but it was a good discussion anyway! Thank you to everyone.