M: So, thanks again and welcome now to our discussion. We'll get right into it and you all have paper and pen now. And if that's helpful for you because I have a first question and that's also the only time where you would have to write something. To start I would just ask you if you can write down the first three thoughts which come to your mind when you hear the European Union or the EU. It's also ok if it's fewer but just the first three thoughts that you associate with the European Union or the EU.

(long pause 01:07-02:17)

M: So, this time I would ask to just go around the circle once so that you say which were the three, two or three points.

(overlapping)

DEFG1_M1: Yes. DEFG1_M1. So, I wrote down as a political counterweight now to the powers USA, China as a counterpole so to speak. Then I wrote down bureaucracy slash regulations because of course this is also about the harmonization of the different interests. I don't know how many states there are at the moment that are in the EU, but the effort is of course greater and I wrote down community. So that a we-feeling between the member states of course is also generated. Which I personally find very nice.-

DEFG1_M2: -Yes. I can add to that directly. So first thought was peaceful Europe. Now also just what is actually directly triggered, because a reference if one now deals with the history of the continent, which is actually a very positive for me now. Because Europe is quite peaceful now the last decades. And I think the EU also has a part in this. Then second thought refers a bit also to the dominant currency of the Eurozone. It is a currency union. Does it have a future, with this currency, how it works? That's a question I ask myself. And then also the last point, what about democracy? Does democracy in the EU also have deficits or are there things that are perhaps not as democratic as they should be.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: The very first thing that came intuitively was the keyword Bureaucratic beast. [short laughing] Second - and obviously, as I take from the laughter, I don't need to explain anything. Second especially with regard to, with regard to foreign policy and trade policy a toothless tiger. And thirdly a peace guarantor.

(short pause)

DEFG1_F4: Exactly. I wrote down the keyword internationality. So it is also very culturally, yes, diverse in the European Union. We have 28 member states and yes it is very heterogeneous. It is not like for example the USA in the direction of homogeneity. It already starts with the language. So just this diversity. Then I always think of the four freedoms of the EU. So the freedom of movement of workers, the freedom of goods and services and so on. So it's a big trade market. Then it is also a currency union. And there are also these political differences. And I think that is also very important and especially in the current time, if you follow the media, you can see that especially France, you can see it in Great Britain, that there are really supply bottlenecks because of certain tensions. Sweden, too, used to be the pioneer, or the Scandinavian countries in general, in the area of social democracy and so on, and now it's tipping over a bit. The right-wing populists are getting stronger and stronger. That's why the question is, how will the balance between net contributors and net donors be structured in the future?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: At the beginning, I spontaneously thought of diversity, which is actually enriching, because there are different cultures that are connected with each other and that can also exchange and move freely. The second keyword was bureaucracy. This has already been mentioned. And the third question I ask myself is, how can we succeed in balancing the different interests of the individual member states in the long term.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M6: Exactly. I have as the first point actually freedom, especially travel freedom. {It} is just also very relevant at my age. Since you can move in Europe simply very freely, you don't have to stand very long at borders as it was once, no eh yes, no endless checks. Then I had as second point ecology. So in the sense of the complete environment and natural disasters and so on. It won't work if Germany deals with this on its own, instead it can only be done in a larger context. And for this, the EU could actually have good leverage. What they make of it is another matter. And the third thing, which has already been said a few times, I don't need to say much about it, including bureaucracy, which came directly to my mind. [short laughing] If you've seen Nico Semsrott, for example, who exposes this for die Partei quite nicely there also in the EU Parliament, what is squandered there in funds, that is just too much.-

M: -Yes, there's spontaneous reactions then to the inputs of the others? Before I move on to the next question. Anytime you can also gladly react on your own, no problem at all. (short pause) Or, I notice some overlap. Perhaps another question, whether you also, whether it has a special meaning for you to be an EU-citizen?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: So I would also pick up on what you said [points to DEFG1_M1]. That has already somewhere so, that has a feeling of being safe and secure actually and also that of external security also opposite other large allies. So that the cohesion appears to me as particularly valuable, if it then always succeeds. The idea, which is behind it, I find quite great. However, it must be possible to organize cohesion from a small village in any country to the large EU and to make it clear to all people that it makes sense not to be overwhelmed with bureaucracy and then suffocated, but rather to see the perspective of the really large association.-

DEFG1_M1: -Yes. I've never really seen myself as, let's say, a German. Sure, I have a German passport, identity card, whatever. But I've always seen myself as part of a larger whole and not limited to Germany. And that's why a lot of this freedom in the Union has appealed to me, what has been said now, the freedom to travel. Yes.

DEFG1_F4: Yes, I may be able to link to that as well. Well, I think it's totally interesting, especially as a student, for example, that there are so many possibilities, whether it's to study here or there within the framework of Erasmus; that you can have many things really approved by any Transcript of Records; that you can also travel a lot, take the cultural diversity with you, without having to stand there at border controls all the time and show something and yes, that you see yourself more as a world citizen, I would almost say. So by the fact that nowadays you can also fly super fast somehow to Asia or so. I personally see myself as a citizen of the EU but also actually so as yes, international community of states supporter.

[00:10:31]

M: [clears throat] Thank you. Yes, how do they see it, if I follow up on that, how do they see it how do the others see it? How would you describe your general position, attitude or also feeling towards the European Union?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: I see it, well, I can underscore very much also what others have said. I think there are very many positive things that you get, because you are a citizen of the EU. Also the set of ideas, which stands behind the model, [is] very much positive also if one sees, what is going on in other regions of the world, it is a very peaceful region, in which we live and that one must be also very thankful for it. I work personally with many people of very, very older age, because I am employed in the area with the elderly and people who have also actively experienced war and other things and that increases in me also so much gratitude that this is just a very peaceful area where I can now live my life anyway and I am very grateful for it. On the other hand, I always associate something ambivalent with the EU, because on the one hand there is the freedom to travel, peace, exchange with other countries, cultural diversity, but on the other hand there is perhaps, I don't know under which term you want to summarize it, whether it's power-political things, simply bureaucracy, then perhaps elements that are now not decided in the sense of the community - so not in the sense of the great European community, so in the sense of the citizens, but perhaps rather in the sense of smaller interest groups. So I find it sometimes a bit ambivalent, but because of the big ideas behind it, I still find it very positive. That’s what I associate with the EU. Yes.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: I think we must, I distinguish for me between the basic thoughts of the European Union, which is very welcome in all what is said, in all dimensions and is valuable, even if it is certainly perverted in the discussion in parts, sometimes, in the states, see Hungary, which play to their own tune. What is not or less desirable, is definitely the institutionalization of this Union and the lack of efficiency of this institutionalization, which leads up to bureaucracy as an end in itself. That is just not nice.

(short pause)

M: Ok. If you would argue that EU membership has been beneficial for your country, Germany; now maybe zooming in on that now, what benefits would you name? You're also welcome to elaborate on what benefits, now specifically concerned, would you associate with EU membership.-

DEFG1_F4: -So I think it definitely has a very strong foreign trade component. Particularly when you look at the international comparison with the USA or something like that. So the European Union is also a huge economic area and Germany has certainly benefited from it. It is one of the top-exporters in general and that you have a lot of freedom, also with the Euro or with all these agreements and that you don’t always have problems with customs. So in this respect, but also through this cultural diversity or also through these political conditions, which then also complement each other quite well in part. On the other hand, you also see certain tensions within the EU. Especially when, for example, the EU is sometimes referred to as a toothless tiger. For example in Poland it is so, Poland belongs to the main recipients - so they have profited quite strongly, especially in the field of agriculture, and the media sometimes portray this in a very distorted way. And that's also something where I think to myself, well, that doesn't have such a positive effect on the economic balance if it's presented in such a distorted way.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: Well I find very, very advantageous the peace, which there has been for many years. We already had the topic and the security in Germany or in which one can live in Germany, but also in many other countries and that perhaps also the feeling, to come back to the previous question, which haunts me that this will be lost. I mean also in some countries like Hungary and Poland, are really drifting apart, where the prime ministers, the heads of government and where completely different things now and where the thought then also gets lost or they don’t stand for it anymore, but for their own personal advantage, also that of their clan or perhaps also that of the citizens, which I believe are not even considered. That's a bit difficult, and I think the advantages are getting lost. In the overall setting in which Germany of course (00:16:13?) was involved and where we have benefited from it, is then lost. What is also an advantage, I just remembered, in the management of a hospital there is actually also the possibility to recruit workers at all, in the nursing or in the medical field in a relatively uncomplicated way, because even degrees, though it is not very easy, they still get recognized and we create - perhaps also to the disadvantage of other member states, one must be very, very careful, of course - a better system of care for many people. But that is also a double-edged matter. But an advantage for Germany.-

DEFG1_M1: -First of all, I would like to emphasize these economic and cultural advantages. Then I also have a very concrete example. So from my professional context. [clearing throat] Well, I work in the pharmaceutical industry and there are central approval procedures throughout the EU. So it's like this, you don't have to file approval procedures for certain drugs only for one country, but you can do it at a central place. This is now located in the Netherlands, not in London. [laughing] For a good reason. For a known reason. And that is of course in this case a bureaucratic facilitation, one has to say undoubtedly. Because this approval is centrally recognized.-

DEFG1_F4: -Yes. I can perhaps add another component. Especially when you look at the equal rights of women. In the EU I say it is completely normal that you, say for example as a woman, go to work, go to study, want to develop somehow, whatever. If you then look at other entities, for example in the Asian region or so, then the Sharia takes effect. You have to be careful what you wear, how you behave, whether you are allowed to look at the person at all, whether you are allowed to walk around alone as a woman in the evening, drink alcohol and so on. That's also a really great freedom I'd say in Europe, that you're just a bit more equal than you are in other communities of states.-

DEFG1_M2: -Yes. I would also say, even if this is not professionally relevant for me, but I think cooperation on different levels is certainly one of the advantages in relation to the EU, because in the economic area, I think, I do not know the bureaucratic requirements, how obstructive they may be in part, but there are certainly many synergies which are made possible by the fact that maybe companies can work/cooperate better with each other on a European level, and I think also in the education sector now maybe exchange universities or other projects, that maybe better connections can be created through the possibilities of the EU and that this is just as borderless as we feel it.

(short pause)

M: Thank you. Yes then maybe I would ask again specifically about the disadvantages. So if you would argue that EU membership was not beneficial for your country, what disadvantages would you name? Even if some things have already been mentioned, I would like to invite you to do so. What disadvantages would you name?-

DEFG1_M3: -I do not believe that Germany has faced any disadvantages as a result of its membership. One could conclude that from the assumption of the net payer status, which we have certainly had for decades, if not from day one. Just the advantages especially when I look at the monetary area, namely having opened this huge export market outweighs the net payer status many times over. So, I would say there are simply no disadvantages. (pause) For Germany.-

[00:20:11]

DEFG1_M5: -So, what comes to my mind is the decision-making process of the, I don't have a concrete topic in mind, but it is very difficult to bring together the interests of 27, 28 member states. Now just with {the} Green Deal or with such things and then to come to a good solution that really holds and that is strategic, and I think you probably have to make quite a lot of compromises, so that then all also go along, because the economic conditions and the cultural conditions are diverse. And a single country could probably position itself more clearly alone. However, it would not have the same impact and effectiveness as the EU as a whole. Even if the target level or the level of ambition is a bit lower. But maybe one needs also time that I could see as a disadvantage to come to decisions.

DEFG1_M2: Yes. I would-

DEFG1_M1: -It’s okay.-

DEFG1_M2: -I would also like to jump in, because I think voting weight is perhaps also a point when it comes to disadvantages. If you’re not not Germany or France, then the desire with regard to asserting certain policies, is much more difficult to achieve at the EU level, because the same voting rights for all countries, or so it seems to me, is not given. That Germany and France push very strongly and that they just have a much greater influence on what is implemented. You can often see this in the appointment of important personnel positions within the Union, which are then often German or French candidates. There is a very big imbalance, I think.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M1: Also again to jump in on the point of DEFG1_M5. So, I thought of the energy policy very specifically.

(overlapping) DEFG1_M5: Yes, of course.-

DEFG1_M1: -The keyword was different interests. So nuclear power yes or no. France says yes, Germany says no. And we ultimately have to live with what the European Union cobbles together, so to speak.-

DEFG1_M5: -Good example. [DEFG1_M1 laughs]

(short pause)

M: Then I would like to ask you to imagine [clears throat] there was a major natural disaster, like an earthquake, flood or forest fire in one of the EU member states. How should the, [clears throat] how should the European Union react? (short pause) What do you think is needed? How should the EU respond?-

DEFG1_M5: -So, subsidiary if the respective state in which the natural disaster happens itself is able to cope with it because enough people are there, enough equipment, enough money, too, then I think there is no big reason or need to become active there across the board. But at the moment when more help is needed, I think it is really good and important that the neighboring countries but also others who have the competence stick together. Or, for example, someone sends crisis management teams for certain events, that experts can make themselves available and come there to help. So there must be solidarity when it becomes known or visible that it exceeds the ability and competence of the individual country.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M6: It also depends a bit on WHERE this disaster occured. If, for example, the topic would be the example of forest fire and that would be in the border region and, for example, the emergency forces of the respective country would have a longer distance, for example, or would have too long a distance than directly available emergency forces directly on the border to another country, that the help can be requested and also quickly and unbureaucratically, for example. [approving sounds] That would be my expectation of it.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: Yes. I would agree to both, what they just said.

(short pause)

M: Yes, how should then, so from your point of view then should the EU specifically, should the EU then not intervene here or take responsibility, or do you see that rather with the responsibility of the individual member states? (short pause) So subsidiary I have-

DEFG1_M5: -I would take that again to higher level. So the EU does not have to regulate this every day. It could perhaps mediate, but that's about bureaucracy again, as with the approval of medicines. Where is which expert located; where are the possibilities? But I think first of all it's a neighborly help. I would assume that the states exchange information with each other and the heads of government visit each other and coordinate or call each other and the networks, which is a huge advantage, that there are great networks probably between people, so between normal people like us [overlapping laughing], but also between politicians that they want to communicate first. If the problem becomes even bigger, then maybe the EU can intervene. But I wouldn't advocate that the EU should presume to do everything, because it certainly can't do it as well as the neighbor whose forest has just been (overlapping)-

DEFG1_M6: -For this-

DEFG1_M5: -Yes.-

DEFG1_M6: -I have something to say about that. But that is only possible because we have the EU in the first place. That the borders can be crossed without any major controls or other things. In other words, that is the basic prerequisite for it.

(long pause)

M: Ok then. In such a case in a member state, in a natural disaster, earthquake, flood or something like that, how should Germany react?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: By subsidiarity. So if there's a fire in Portugal, we certainly won't send the Darmstadt fire department. [laughing] That makes no sense. Depending on the size of the event, subsidiarity. If necessary, as was the case in Ahr Valley, with the deployment of specialists, THW or similar, but we have seen that not only in the EU, but also, for example, with the large earthquake in Turkey, there (150 men sent but that's it).

DEFG1_F4: I would also like to say something about this. I can imagine that it is important to signal dialog readiness. So that you show that you are a community of states, you are a European Union; that Germany, for example, stands up and signals that we would intervene if necessary, but we won't necessarily do it, but we are there for our partners. And that one has a hotline, as it was called during the Cold War, so that one is put through directly without ten bureaucratic obstacles. Because with something like this, it's super important to react quickly.

(long pause)

M: Yes, if it were necessary, if it were necessary to send a crisis management team, firefighters, THW, doctors or the like to an affected country, do you think that Germany should do that in such a case? And who should bear the costs for this support?

(long pause)

DEFG1_M5: Yes, so in any case Germany should do that. And at the moment I wouldn't think about the costs at all, but first of all provide help and don't think about who will pay the bill beforehand [laughing] and then trust that afterwards either Germany can pay for it itself and that's solidary help, depending on the extent. And if it's on a large scale then it will be the same as always. Like in Germany when there is a flood catastrophe, all possible countries [approving noises] give something into a pot according to a key or something and then those who have helped get something back. I would rely on that. I am also sure that something like this would be initiated. But I would not ask now first who pays for it before I head out.

DEFG1_F4: Yes. I would also like to add to that. I think that it is also important to say again at this point that, for example, we also have the European Court of Justice. So if necessary, if one then says one acts fast, one must proceed pragmatically, then there's still the European Commission as guardian of the treaties, ECJ, however, which can decide if necessary about how that is then divided.

(short pause)

[00:29:33]

DEFG1_M1: So it has already been said. The distribution of the burden, so to speak, must then also be in time. The keyword has just been mentioned. And I would see that in the same way that helping out is not just a matter of one nation, but that one also sees oneself as a community of states.

(long pause)

M: In case of such disasters or emergencies, should some states do more than others?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: Certainly a question of possibilities. I could imagine that others probably don't get as far as we do. So you might have to then (short pause) determine by the possibilities. But principally no, there should be no difference. Limitation is in the possibilities one has.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M1: I thought of the migration issue from the recent past. And there was also again this discussion about the distribution mechanism and I was also of the opinion, a country with a larger population and greater resources should also perform more than others.

(short pause)

M: DEFG1_M1, if I may ask, can you explain that? This distribution, also for example in the migration question, could depend on capabilities or on the capacities? I ask this question just for understanding, whether I have understood that correctly; if you can explain.-

DEFG1_M1: -Maybe I can just explain it a little bit again. There were countries that took in a disproportionately large number of refugees. I can think of Sweden specifically, I mean. And there are other countries that have simply taken in fewer refugees, according to this key, which should actually be applied, if you take the population figure as a basis. I don't know if that makes it clearer.-

M: -If I may ask DEFG1_M6 now, you spoke of "do according to possibilities". Also, for example, in the specific case of disasters and emergency aid. Could you also explain what you meant with these possibilities?-

DEFG1_M3: -Simply the presence of resources. Where we can easily send 500 firefighters, Andorra may only have 250, and they won't send 500.-

DEFG1_F4: -I would like to jump in again at this point. I also think it's totally important to take into account the political conditions in a country. So, we're talking a lot about resources now, as rather cosmopolitan citizens. On the other hand, you also have to take into account that there are these tensions in certain countries, because people tend to vote right-wing populist and so on. You can't ignore that either. Only if you are then always willing to provide resources, so to speak, without then conducting the “Politbarometer”, whatever, or other surveys and then saying something like "Yes, we can do it”. That appealed to me at the time, but you could see what that led to. So if one adopts that unquestioned as a cosmopolitan citizen, without trying to think into the heads of right-wing populists. That's terrible and so on, but nevertheless you have to make sure that you don't stray further from this center by simply ignoring these people who are on the fringe. That's why you always have to look at what the mood is. Are we even in the situation of being able to do something like this or do we not continue to lose voters, for example in Germany, to the AfD by doing something like this?

(long pause)

M: Would you also personally commit to help? For example, if something like a natural disaster were to happen in another country?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: For me personally that would probably also depend on the extent. If the extent is so great that people say we really need everyone who can help, then and there are conditions that you can just take a break from your own profession and everything, and then I would answer that with yes. So if it's really so bad that really everyone is needed. Otherwise I think that now with smaller dimensions, simply enough competent people can be brought together in the European Union, if one bundles the forces of all countries.

(short pause)

DEFG1_F4: I think, it is also important not to disregard the emotional component. In economics, we often talk about homo economicus, but people are not always so rational. And when I think, for example, that I somehow saw these forest fires in Australia at that time, then you think, Oh my God, you were there [overlapping cough] once and the koalas lost their little paws, so to speak, then I would have liked to fly there and help directly. So I think it's always a little bit related to that, what does that awaken in you. So if you have a relationship, for example, to the country through Erasmus, through any exchange programs whatsoever, then that's something else again.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: I would add to that, that is an important point, I also think, what kind of a signal and a sign something is. So now with Covid for example when patients who could no longer be cared for in Italy or in other countries were flown out, then that is perhaps a drop in the bucket. Maybe there were ten, or 15 or 100. But the symbol is important, of course, and you can also show that through personal commitment. But as in the Ahr Valley, that does not make sense either when the roads get jammed, I believe, because everyone felt they had to go there and help. So one must, it must be meaningful, and then I would get involved also. But I'm not, I cannot imagine the situation at all. If there is not enough professional help in the surrounding area, I would say, which provides support, and if it is another country or far from Frankfurt, it will take a long time until I would probably feel the need to go there. Except out of emotional concern, but then the question is whether it makes sense, whether it really helps on the ground.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: I would like to take up again what DEFG1_M5 said. The Corona example with the patients who were flown out is quite nice, because it also shows how Europe has moved in this direction; that something like this is simply possible without there being any large-scale dissenting voices or that one simply thinks that it is somehow - I think most people felt this way - a matter of course that one tries to do something among European countries.

(long pause)

M: Then (short pause) as always of course thank you very much. Then maybe I change a little bit my scenario. And if we imagine then it would be about an economic crisis or an economic crisis like the euro and financial crisis, such a crisis would happen again and some countries would be affected more than others, how should Germany react?

(long pause)

DEFG1_F4: I think it's very important to always look in such a situation at the situation at hand. I don't think you can say across the board that Germany always has to pay, that Germany always has to accept financial losses, so to speak. There are also different forms of commitment. For example, you can say yes, Germany will accept this or that, and the other country will then accommodate you at another level for example by allowing more freedoms or whatever. On the other hand, you also have to see that EU law always breaks German law and you can see it now with inflation. It's higher than it has been for a long time. And that's why I think it's always a bit difficult to say that you always have to act one way or the other. It depends on the situation, on the relationship of the international affairs. (short pause) Where does the country want to go? Where was it in the past? What are the political circumstances and so on. So if for example diplomatic faux pas happened, be it that the diplomats were somehow flown out, expelled, that is already such a yes mishap. And if something like that has happened then you have to sanction it if necessary.

(short pause)

[00:39:42]

M: Was that related to the economic crisis also with regard to sanctions, depending on what happened in the past, and could you maybe explain that briefly?-.

DEFG1_F4: -So it always depends a bit on the situation. Well, there are also sometimes situations at the international level where agreements are not adhered to, to international framework agreements, the Lisbon Treaty, whatever - you just have to make sure that in such an economic crisis, I don't know. If someone - we are a team, we are a community and we pull we should all pull together. And if you tolerate too much stepping out of line, then more and more countries will leave. We have seen this in the recent past, be it in Great Britain, France, Le Pen is getting stronger and stronger and if necessary you have to give in a little bit. That's why we have a European Union.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: So I would also say that if it's a major economic crisis, the question is, what caused it? Is it somehow affecting one country or is it really widespread in Europe and what is the reason for it? And then I don't see an individual country first of all in the obligation, but then really the EU with its institutions, which then examines and somehow proposes so our politicians who are then there, that they then develop proposals. What is to be done and then it depends certainly also on whether any monetary aid also arrives, and whether it is used properly. Whether one trusts the governments in the affected countries, that links more to what DEFG1_M4 was saying, that the aid also arrives and then bears fruit, otherwise it is frustrating and afterwards difficult to mediate in Germany or in the respective country that supports there perhaps.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: Yes. This somehow makes me think a lot about the Greek crisis, and- (overlapping)

DEFG1_M5: -Yes.-

DEFG1_M2: -And in retrospect I cannot really position myself, as looking back I now evaluate, also because that is always a very very fragile matter if a country or helps or somehow is seen as taking over the aid effort as it was the case with Greece. Since everyone was talking about {German Finance Minister} Schäuble everywhere and whether then things have also been decided so that they were for the welfare of the country that has received aid that is always so difficult to view in retrospect. So that can also be very, very critical then somehow if other countries then somehow make specifications. Unfortunately, I can't phrase it any better than that right now. It is simply somehow quite fragile and a difficult matter, also because I think in retrospect the Troika, there were also very, very many mistakes made but which definitely had to be hammered through at the time, even against the greatest resistance. That's why it's a very difficult matter; and how, which voice is doing the talking? Do we speak with the collective voice of the entire EU or do we speak with the voice of the three largest economic nations in the EU who then simply push it through? Yes, very difficult topic.

DEFG1_M6: Perhaps still my opinion on it. As a rule it is actually, we were just speaking about economic and financial crisis, for example, since we are in an economic and financial union or monetary union, a short-term aid as a rule is actually in my opinion useful; because if you would leave the countries practically to themselves in such situations and they would go bankrupt, which would no longer be creditworthy etc., that would rather harm the euro in the long term and thus also the economic strength of Germany than now this short-term aid possibly hurt. They are then indeed everywhere in the media and as is often said ‘Germany again spends the money for everyone’, but in the medium to long term, Germany also benefits again from the fact that they have provided money.

(short pause)

M: If I may ask briefly, is the aid in such an economic crisis in a certain extent also in Germany's own interest?-

DEFG1_M6: -Yes, definitely. So these are two components a bit. Of course the own interest, but on the other hand also the solidarity that we simply have in the EU.-

M: -If I may ask again. Could you also explain this last point a bit? What do you mean by solidarity in this case?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M6: Yes, the solidarity was also now less related to; so, we have to help them because we are in the EU, but that also actually goes more in the direction of self-interest then also again related to the euro, the monetary union. That would also be self-interest in this case.

(short pause)

M: Side note: That is just my interest [laughing]-

DEFG1_M6: -Yes-

M: -…when I ask follow-up questions. Thank you. Yes.-

DEFG1_M1: -Yes, well, we have already said that Germany profits economically from the European Union. And therefore, it is clear for me, yes, that financial help must be provided and Germany has to make a contribution. And also here this would raise the question for me about the allocation and this justice in the distribution of the burden, you know, that would be my point. So that there is not this image of the paymaster of the Union and the lazy southerners, yes, {but rather} that this burden is not just perceived as one-sided.

(short pause)

M: I would like to ask. This one-sided perspective, from what point of view? From different points of view? Who o receives the help or who gives the help?-

-DEFG1_M1: Yes exactly, so that, now I mean, that is in the media it is very, very difficult to control. Everything is somehow blown out of proportion and dragged into the negative. But we don't want to create the impression here at the national level that the burden is being shouldered by Germany alone, because of course that also creates a certain mood. [dishes clinking in the background]

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: So I think it's also an exciting question whether the aid then works, whether reforms are then tackled that really lead to the crisis being overcome or whether the money then flows there, but no restructuring takes place. There's also the nice phrase "reform through crisis". That is in many enterprises the case, that if crisis-like conditions are there and they really experience the crisis, then it as if one is also personally often only then ready to change. And if the crisis is covered up by money and so then maybe there is no willingness to change. And then I think that is extraordinarily problematic for any country that, in that one invests, to explain it to a population. On the other hand, there is a fine line between patronizing others and saying that I have to set conditions and ‘only then and then and then’. But I think you have to be sure that the money is invested in such a way that it flows there, that it doesn't trickle away in any channels, with any private people or in organizations and that something actually changes that is appropriate for the respective country. That is extraordinarily difficult for sure and so that depends also on the confidence in the government there for sure, in the acting persons, in the network that has been built up there. So maybe you can tie the whole thing to conditions, that I think is right, but that then not a single country comes up with, but rather the EU as whole. That there are rules which one follows also.-

DEFG1_F4: -Yes, I would also like to add again to this point. Especially the example of Greece, when it came to its entry to the European Union, it was also - not to be misunderstand, I like to go to Greece on vacation and so. I think it's good that Greece is there in the European Union, my subjective opinion -. But at that time I also noticed that because of the falsified balance sheets, nobody really noticed what was actually being done there and suddenly they were in the Union. And there is simply this diversity within the European Union. It starts with the working hours at the individual, I don't know, institutes, be it at the Foreign Office or elsewhere. It is difficult to compare the individual mentalities with each other. But on the other hand, I think it's important to show that you're not this toothless tiger, but that you already have certain things that you can control. Another example is, for example, there is sometimes support in Africa or so, poverty aid or similar. There, too, it doesn't make sense to apply the ‘watering pot principle’ and simply throw more money at it. One must rather give the people the possibilities though education. I find education the most important anyway, through good resources, through good institutes and so on to be able to have self-help because in the long run that is the solution. It cannot always be that Germany then comes along and says how it is done. It really has to be tackled by the country itself. With the support of the community, of course. But nevertheless, it has to start with the change within the country itself.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: I would also take up again what DEFG1_F4 has said because I believe that also the EU is rather in the duty, to make better assessments on who should be included in the monetary union and who is not. Because in the past there were surely many mistakes made or countries were knowingly included, where one knew, that it is perhaps the greatest incentive of the country itself, perhaps just to get to the EU funding programs, even without having looked at the structures that may exist there and that a certain uniformity is needed because of the many cultural and historical differences in the countries. Also how the systems have developed, and that is probably also important to be able to react better in future crises, because there are also very, very big differences. Whether every country should be included in the monetary union is another question. There are always enough interested parties.

(long pause)

[00:50:24]

M: Why should, how should then the EU itself respond to that and in the case of another economic crisis? So is this a case where the EU should do more and not the member states and certain member states? (long pause) Or we can also come back to that as well. Okay, then, I'll put the question on hold. Maybe then asked differently. Then if we imagine Germany would be the country that got into financial distress or economic distress in the course of a European crisis where some countries are more affected than others, what should and how should the other EU countries react?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: Yes, just as Germany should react in the case as not-crisis-affected country {would}. I believe that every member state should first of all express and formulate its own interests clearly but not lose sight of the European horizon. In other words: look beyond that. For us, this means that you don't let a customer go bankrupt if he can continue to lay golden eggs, for example, or if you can continue to export technology tomorrow that I, as a country that is not too badly affected, such as Germany, can no longer get in the future because some industry goes bust. And that also answers the question then about the role of the EU. That is - the task cannot be to be a money distributor. The task must be, to point out the overarching side effects and possibly expected collateral damage of non-actions, but every actor is first at home with himself - and then the neighbor.

(short pause)

M: And if Germany would depend on financial support from other European member states and receives it, should Germany then also adhere to certain restrictions or regulations? And be bound to that?-

DEFG1_F4: -I find it is important to act in solidarity. If we place certain expectations toward, for instance, Cyprus, Greece or whomever, then we should also take a good look at ourselves, and say, okay, we are also prepared to, like, subject ourselves to controlling mechanisms to show, okay, we work hard and we follow the rules. Otherwise, things will turn into these tensions, which we do not want if we want to keep the EU. And that is precisely the point too. And that is why I meant just now that it is important to pay attention, proportionality is well and good. And that there are people like me who say the EU is important. But one should not overlook that there are other trends currently. And something like that can fuel it of course, when one says, yeah, German has paid so much. We do not look at ourselves in the mirror, we do our own thing.

(short pause)

M: If I may ask a follow-up question, DEFG1_M2, I see that you were nodding your head. Is that agreement, do you see things similarly?-

DEFG1_M2: -Yes, I would also agree with that. I mean, what we demand of others must also apply to ourselves. And I personally would hope that the others perhaps deal with us a little more mercifully than we do with others. Now when I look at Greece but that's a personal opinion.-

DEFG1_M5: -So an economic crisis like this doesn't just happen out of the blue and hit an EU country overnight; it has a very long history. There are more than enough criteria or rules of the game, the national debt, for example, or other things that should be adhered to by the member states, or corridors that should be adhered to. And in the run-up {to crises} there is also conscious, and in the crisis, I think, quite a lot of measures and mechanisms that have been thought of to avoid a crisis. And to that extent you have to go back into the reasons why it has come to the crisis and then somehow also see, is the assistance that has been granted then also good for getting out of the crisis. And this applies to every country in absolutely the same way. If we regularly fail to meet some, I don't know what they are called, criteria that are set up in the monetary or financial area and {do not fulfill} the sanctions that are then imposed, then it will be quite bitter for us and then the solidarity that the others are willing to give is certainly limited. There will be no revenge or anything like that. But it's much more difficult to communicate, if one has maneuvered oneself into this. Or maybe some populists, mostly politicians, but it is not so much us as citizens who cause it. But it's more like they, that is, those elected by us, can then govern our country in a much more pleasant way and then spend more money than there is. So we citizens do have a responsibility, I would say. But it's really a question of how the governments react to this. And then there is not really that much solidarity and maybe they have to be voted out of office.

(long pause)

DEFG1_M1: So, I also nodded to confirm that again, yes. Of course, solidarity has to work both ways. So, if I am willing and ready to help, I must also be able to expect to receive help.

(short pause)

M: Yes, so that means to provide help, but also then to be able to expect it. Another topic then I picked up: In the community and solidarity there is also an expectation to comply with the rules. Is that, have I understood that correctly as well?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: That is the feature of every community. It doesn't matter whether it's a family or a town, Bensheim or Frankfurt or the EU. It only works if there are rules that are thought out together to which most people can nod, of course, so that a consensus is reached and if they are observed and non-compliance is sanctioned. That's the case at every level, in the EU as well as in companies as well as in the family. Otherwise, I don't think any community will work.

(short pause)

DEFG1_F4: Yes, or just also to bring in the example again about what are the advantages. That closes the circle again, basically. So in the EU it is a basic requirement that there are certain rights. Human rights, freedom of the press and so on. Therefore, for years there has been this discussion, Turkey, should they come in, should they not come in. That is also something like that. There are certain rules because otherwise this community would collapse. So now not necessarily because of Turkey or whatever. But if some rules are disregarded, it is very difficult to find a consensus. Especially when every state has the same voting power and then someone vetoes, and then some treaties fall apart. That's why it's important to record certain things in writing beforehand, during the process, and afterwards.-

DEFG1_M2: -If I can still respond to that. This also shows how fundamentally fragile community can be. Because what happens when members of the community already withdraw their consent to certain rules anyway. Now, as in Poland, when there are legal reforms that are no longer compatible with EU law. Or Hungary and other areas. How does the community deal with that? And because the toothless tiger has already been mentioned several times, I don't know what's in store for the EU in the next few years. Whether we will have to be a bit tougher in order to show that, the communities, we are also prepared to defend the community to a greater extent in order to prevent this erosion because it seems like such a small smoldering fire is spreading. I don't know how the others see it.

[affirmative sounds]

M: Yes, by the way, it is also always welcome if you like, you can also ask how others see it. That is no problem at all. But then I have a question. Well, let's leave the specific economic crisis and consider that there are inequalities between countries. But there are also inequalities between people within a country. Should the EU then have a joint program or some kind of joint fund to reduce social inequalities, for example in view of increasing income disparities even within societies? Why and why not?

(short pause)

[01:00:00]

DEFG1_M2: Well, I think it's a very difficult subject. It is always desirable of course to reduce inequalities, but it is always the question of perspective, who perceives what as unequal and why? And if things should be decided on EU level and would be VALID for the entire community, then this could be validated, so to speak, in my opinion, only with a Europe-wide election, in which as many people as possible participate. Because, I don't know, take a single resolution in the European Parliament - whether that then also always fulfills the will of the entire European population, if it has to do with concrete changes concerning equality in the in the everyday life of many countries, which all have different histories, values and ideas. One would need, I believe, the maximum broadest possible basis to do such things. Then it might be possible but it is very difficult to see if such a thing can succeed.

DEFG1_M5: Well, I don't think inequality is a bad thing at all. Rather it is something that is very nice when everything is not the same, then it's totally boring. Inequalities also create tension, which can also be very positive and nice. That's why everyone likes to go to Italy, because the sun shines there and because it's so beautiful. But that's only so attractive because it often rains here, otherwise the attraction would be gone. And it is exactly the thing. That's the question, why should everything be the same? Certainly, certain minimum standards must be reached, which then concerns, for my part, old age that one can live in dignity. There are certainly, with us there are Christian values, there are occidental values or in the EU. That's why it's a great cohesion. There is a common understanding of values. And that should not be undercut, of course. That is education for all and equal opportunities and many, many other things. But how it's regulated exactly is completely different in Greece or Italy or somewhere else than it is in Germany. It's always been totally disparate in Germany, which totally annoys me, this federalism in the educational landscape, I cannot, so, it's not the issue. But that there is the inequality, that has to be, you have to accept this and sometimes one has more economic power, the other has more pleasant living conditions and rents not as high as elsewhere. And I would really address this with minimum regulations and regulate as little as possible and throughout Europe to ensure that not everything is the same, except perhaps in the approval of drugs or where it really makes sense. But there are many - but then it's excessive bureaucracy or something, but how do you come, so what is the standard, what should be the same? There I would allow quite a lot of leeway also because then there is development and dynamics.-

DEFG1_M6: -I would perhaps disagree with that actually, because I also have a concrete example, which I heard yesterday on the podcast. The German Soccer League {Bundesliga}, for example. There we also have the proceeds from television rights, they are all in one fund and they are distributed unevenly so that they rather go to the top teams in contrast to those who are further towards the bottom {of the league}. What, which leads to the fact that the gap simply widens between those who are at the top – or for example like Germany versus countries that have less. And at some point it is no longer possible to stop this imbalance, or only through really drastic reforms, but which would then make Germany again no longer competitive in international comparison with the U.S., China or whatever. That means, the sooner one strives for such reforms, the smaller are the means which are needed for it. That would be my opinion.-

M: -If I take that up, transferred then to the EU, the EU should set up a Europe-wide system, for example, to combat unemployment in all countries, which would then be financed by all EU member states.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M3: I am not of that opinion. I think what the EU should do, and has done for a long time, is to remove structural barriers. So, Internet access, access to infrastructure. Just a concrete example: whoever travels through Portugal will find that they, and especially those who’ve done this in the past will have found, that road, telephone network, internet, education, were all resources that were rare to unusable. Anyone who has traveled through Portugal in the last five years will be envious of the highways, will find high-speed Internet in the most distant corner {of the country}, will find excellent institutionalized institutes of further education and universities that are integrated into a European network. These are all measures that have improved the infrastructure, paid for by the EU. To make something out of it, {it’s} the same old story, I can put you on the horse but you have to ride it yourself. I believe, and that is what the EU is doing, exactly that is what it is doing. It should invest in infrastructure, in basic conditions so that the individual citizen in a country which had a different starting point has the chance to profit from the infrastructure, which did not exist before and does not have to emigrate to Germany from Portugal. But if the infrastructure in the country is there and people still go unemployed because the local government does not play that sensibly, tough luck.

(short pause)

DEFG1_F4: I would also like to say again on that point. I think it is very important to look at the whole thing in a somewhat differentiated way. If you look at unemployment, it varies from member state to member state. So if you look at who is unemployed? Is it the young academics? For example, youth unemployment is much higher in Spain, in the southern countries, I would say, than in Scandinavia, for example. The proportion of academics and so on is higher in Scandinavia. That's why I also think it's always necessary to look directly at the country. Experts who can then perhaps somehow judge this, instead of having, now, one institution or similar that determines this for all. You can see it now for example also like at the European, that is, elections for the European council or parliament that the voter turnout is mostly relatively low. So this institution, EU, it has simply not grown so blatantly for everyone. If we have about 30 percent, then you can't say that, the EU can come with the watering can, and claim you have to do it this way or that way. So you really have to take a close look and then take certain measures, as it were. And what I also find important is the idea of competition. Personally, I am a friend of the fact that certain liberal values are also lived. The comparison with the countries, that one looks at what works well there, what works better there, that also encourages you. If you look at Scandinavia, for example, there are very close ties to Finland, Norway and so on. They look at how the degree of academization is there. And I think this idea of competition is actually a good thing.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: I also find it difficult now to proceed centralized against unemployment. Maybe rather that the EU countries try to support targeted reforms to point of supporting, also for infrastructure, what DEFG1_M3 said. I think also it is perhaps rather a better option because if there were centralized specifications of the overarching institutions for all countries, I see so much explosive potential there that the whole community could actually tear apart. If you look at how very differently societal discussion is transpiring about the way you should deal with unemployment, and if you just take individual countries that is also a very explosive topic in Germany. It can also be, it is also a topic of hot discussion, also in politics always and socially. And I think that if we were to try to somehow control this throughout Europe with a fixed quota that applies to all countries that would probably be the best way to break up the European community. But for the countries where things are going well, they will then probably be very satisfied and the countries where things are going badly would then perhaps also point the finger more at the institution. And I think that the EU should rather support the countries a bit fundamentally by creating infrastructure or conditions to fight the problems on the ground. Because the countries themselves know where the problems are most likely to be because they are closest to them, logically.

(short pause)

M: If it is in a particular EU member state, could also be Germany but let's say some EU member state, there is a particularly high unemployment. Should the EU then specifically try to reduce or combat this in this case?

(long pause)

[01:10:02]

DEFG1_M5: I can't imagine that the EU can do that, because unemployment has reasons that lie in the economic power, in what is perhaps produced in the country, in the education system. That there are many upstream reasons and here I cannot imagine that the EU has the possibility, except perhaps to send people to transfer know-how as {we discussed} before with the disasters. That you give advice and to get away from that [01:10:32 overlapping clatter]. We network and make best practice exchanges, just give advice on how everything can work. This is a very, very long-term topic that is directly linked to the economy. And I would say that this is mainly a matter for the {German} state-level governments. I can't imagine how the EU could intervene, I would say. (long pause) Maybe my imagination does not stretch far enough. [quiet laughing]-

DEFG1_M1: -Though, that has already happened in the past. So, if you think back to Spain, this youth unemployment was also mentioned earlier in the country. Of course, that is a consequence of the economic development. That is basically, so I would say this EU rescue umbrella, such a, so as a keyword. That is, yes, that has happened, there has been help provided by the EU community of states. [harrumphed] And I would see it as the right thing to do.

(short pause)

M: Is that also seen as the right thing to do, if I may ask, then also if it is linked with extra costs for Germany?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M1: Yes. I am always this stickler for justice. It is, I believe, totally difficult psychologically, so this relationship out of give and take. I believe, the impression arises quite often or perhaps also automatically that one gives more than one gets, yes. But I would first answer the question in the affirmative.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M6: Can I perhaps say something briefly about this.-

M: -DEFG1_M6-

DEFG1_M6: -Yes. But that would bring me back to the argument I just mentioned. Where it is now but about youth unemployment. If there's the possibility to simply SUPPORT this with MONEY in the short term and that's really also useful, then I'm still of the opinion that this makes more sense. Because if a complete generation, a young generation grows up without work, then the long-term problems are MUCH BIGGER and almost unmanageable than possibly being able to fix this in the short term.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M5: But I agree with you, DEFG1_M6. But that still has deeper causes.- (overlapping)

DEFG1_M6: -Yes.

DEFG1_M5: -If I now, if I now briefly pour our money, then that may perhaps work out the next two, three years. But then the problem comes up again if I do not solve it at the roots. And that doesn't happen overnight with youth unemployment or unemployment at all, but that is a process of years or decades: how it develops around the economy, which industry is there, which services are there, which educational opportunities and possibilities there are, how they are perceived. And here I think you have to rack your brains for a much longer term to avoid such situations if possible. And then it's the same as with fires or natural disasters, I would help. But you also have to be sure that the measures will work. So that brings me back to what I said earlier. It's very, very difficult to communicate this if you give money and it vanishes, then it just dissipates, then you don't achieve the effects. Really great what you're saying, but then you still might not achieve them nevertheless.-

DEFG1_M6: -Yes, exactly. Yes, that's why I also meant by meaningful measures. If there are possibly structures that are created there, which may not help now in the next five years but then in the next 10, 15 years change the labor market there that is of course something else. As you said, there's no point in pouring money into it, and what comes out of it is only short-term. I'm totally with you.

(short pause)

[01:14:34]

M: We are approaching the end. [laughing] I will also take up this concept of give and take. We also have had community, justice, give and take. (short pause) Also the others, do you have a connection with this context, this specific context of the European Union, so in the investments, fighting unemployment or other support measures?

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: Can you rephrase the question?-

-M: Yes so you can, yes, the question is, can you also - is that important for you? Or also in the context of the European Union that there should also be a give and take? And if yes, or also not or if yes then in which context? So for example somebody spoke rather of infrastructure investments that could be useful. As for the question of the category ‘give and take’ as an important principle with regard to justice but in response to unemployment, its reduction or other welfare assistance. And therefore simply my quite open question is whether this has also triggered something for you, whether you think, Yes, I agree or nevertheless not in the context of the EU?-

DEFG1_F4: -I think it's important that there is definitely support within the European Union. I also think it's important to act in solidarity. But on the other hand, I also think that the principle of proportionality is always important. So that, for example, young people in certain countries do not feel disadvantaged when they hear for example that somewhere there is no church tax but in Germany there is. These are just such little things. And I'm sympathetic to approaching certain things struturally; that you simply look how can you improve what? How can we perhaps adapt the cooperation within the European Union? How can, for example, an individual state get a greater say? Be it freedom of speech in the European Parliament or whatever. But this merit principle, I think that you have to apply it in a certain respect also in the European Union. Because if you, for example, take young academics still unmarried, tax class 1 in Germany, they pay half of their salary simply for the state, so you can understand to a certain extent. On the other hand, you then look at other countries, it is again different there. So sure, there's Scandinavia, but there's also a different mentality and so on. And you also have to make sure that you don't demotivate people by imposing even more taxes because then it leads to people saying, okay, why do you study at all? (overlapping)-

M: -I…-

DEFG1_F4: -For some. Well, that's not my personal opinion, but that's what some people say, so opinion polls are quite good.-

M: -If I may ask: Why is this merit principle important? Why is that important?-

DEFG1_F4: -I think it's important because you also see, ok, you invest in the European Union for example, you like to do that, you pay taxes for something. But then you also want to see that it is used. You don't want to have the impression, for example, that you're paying quite a few euros every month into something where you then think, oh dear, it's going to be driven into a wreck or something. So thus the merit principle. Then we bring up again the monitoring measures and cohesion. And yes, I mean the planned economy in Germany, a very stupid example, the {former} German Democratic Republic has shown that this does not work. So that's why, this merit principle. You can also see it in companies that people are often more productive in banks when they get paid bonuses.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: Yes, the merit principle. I find it an interesting topic. How should I say that [laughs]. When I see that a lady has become the head of the European Central Bank who doesn't have the best reputation regarding the responsible handling of tax money, then I find it difficult of course. But I think the principle of merit would actually be nice in this context from politics and from the people who lead the institution so that you as a European also have the feeling that taxpayers' money is not just being burned in all possible directions because they don't care, because they are being nicely subsidized by the taxpayer, so to speak, in order to strengthen the community. And just if you now go back to the big picture again to the question, so the give and take, I think it is just important definitely because DEFG1_M5 said it earlier, that community actually works only if you try to share values with each other, mutual giving, taking and supporting. For me it is then again the arc into the future because the question is also in the real world; DEFG1_M1 said this at the very beginning, how does Europe position itself in relation to the Americans and the Chinese and other areas of the world. And I think Europe has a very good chance to position itself so well that you have a lot of influence and can still move a lot for the citizens who live in the community, so to speak. In my opinion, you just have to lead the institution with so much sincerity and sense of responsibility that the trust of the citizens is also there in the institutions. And I think that's something that I know – how the others are maybe, someone would like to say something else - but my trust in the institutions is rather decreasing I would say now, in relation to some decision-makers or some processes, how they work. I would simply wish for more in the future in this regard so that the {EU} construct remains and that you do not tell your grandchildren someday there was once the EU, it was a quite nice idea but [overlapping laughing] has not worked. I do not know how the others see things with regard to the future.

[01:20:35]

DEFG1_F4: I would also like to say something about the community. I think it's great that the European Union exists. But you can also "educate" this community factor in people from an early age, in quotation marks. So, for example, it's also a lived practice that there are for example more international television programs. For example, in Scandinavia it's simply the case that people watch television completely in English and I want something like that. So I think it's good that there are more or less cross-overs, whether it's some common magazines, some common forums, some TV shows, whatever. So it already starts with Netflix, that you sort of look, what's there or so and so you can also promote the community through these soft factors which are not to be underestimated. Or Erasmus programs. Or that you-

DEFG1_M2: -So thus strengthen the European idea this way.-

DEFG1_F4: -Exactly, that you strengthen it. Or that you also say, yes, as an employer yes, okay, we may not be super international but you are interested in internationality, then go abroad and take some experience with you. And that's how you promote this community thinking and then you have this team spirit again.

DEFG1_M5: So I just thought it was very important to mention trust and that's not always just about the people, I think the institutions are also a result of the actors in the institutions and there are actually quite a few. And it's probably also a function of time, where you start out full of enthusiasm at the beginning and then you see what others are taking on and what's possible and then you push your limits further and further and then somewhere the initial enthusiasm gets lost to a certain extent. And the EU is now a bit more mature and older and you have to keep rekindling the fire, just like with the companies. At some point it gets boring. You then maybe change jobs because everything is so familiar and then the fun is lost and you then optimize for yourself and it was then actually not important for the big picture and there you have to be terribly careful. This is very, very human and that's why it will probably be special people, our heads of government which we then choose and the EU politicians. That they really stand up for what we have in common, there's certainly a lot. Maybe you just need a system, how to get them out, the people who then also question the system or exploit it for themselves. Then I think everyone would be much more satisfied. Then one would also, that is what you were saying, pay even more for it, if one can assume that that is really used in the sense of its purpose; if it also goes wrong, which can also happen, but still it is done in the sense of the purpose. And that depends very much on the individual people and on the credibility and trust that you give them.-

DEFG1_M2: -I would like to respond to something that DEFG1_M5 has just said because I don't know how the others experience it, but in recent years I've come to see a bit of this image, or more precisely, in the last 10 to 15 years perhaps that an EU post is, for German politicians, is more like an estate reserved for their retirement, even for people who have simply shown that they can't do certain things. And when I then see that people are put in positions where I personally do not expect them to have any competence like now Günther Oettinger, digitalization expert for the EU or, however you want to see it, Ursula von der Leyen, Commission President, straight off from the advisor affair with the German military, then I think then also the policy of the respective countries actually has a much greater responsibility than they want to admit, which people you send there and what kind of image you consequently represent to the people.-

DEFG1_M6: -I I also have something to add. Of course, but these are also things that you are very aware of because they are also in the media a lot, such things.-

DEFG1_M2: -Yes.-

DEFG1_M6: -But beyond that, for example, we have to see that we now have a Green Deal which is in place. It's not quite optimal, I might say, but it's in place. It won’t be messed with now. It doesn't matter whether von der Leyen or anyone else has decided it. The thing stands and, in the larger framework, they already manage to agree on things, even if then, in between, some people probably pull out money again for their countries and similar, and distribute it differently than was actually intended and such things. But-

DEFG1_M2: -You mean the positive outweighs the negative.-

DEFG1_M6: -Exactly. We have a Green Deal at the end of the day. We are until, I think 2050 or so, what is now envisaged is perhaps now a bit late but hey, that's another topic. We have it!-

DEFG1_F4: -I would like to say something about trust in general. I think it is also very important that the European Union becomes even more transparent and even more open. I think the European Union is such an abstract construct for many people. Ah well, there's a commission, a European Council, whatever. But you see that already with the fact that it is perfectly legal if you visit for example the {European} Parliament in Strasbourg then you are first of all completely screened. That's okay and so on. But there are somewhat too few forums, for example, and then you have, like, a question about digitalization or whatever. Then you first write, then you fill out an application and then it's about 50 pages and then you don't feel like it anymore on page 3. There are some unconventional things like social media, however, yes, that you can chat with, for example, with any members of the EU-Parliament, then they are not so unapproachable. Because sometimes it seems that way. And I think it would be much more interesting for young people who are rather, so quick in the communication skills, just write on Instagram, yes how are you, or whatever. I think that would appeal to many people much more, and not that there is always a certain clientele, so, a typical picture like the council presidents or you know the former (politicians?) meet, and it's just, so there are just no young, dynamic people there. So that's a bit of a shame, I think.

(short pause)

M: Unfortunately, I think, we are approaching the end of the discussion. I really could have listened to you much longer. But I would like to give you the opportunity perhaps to conclude here. We have talked a lot about mutual support within the EU and your opinions about it. I would like to ask, what are other topics? Some of you have already mentioned some. Also in connection with their idea of the future of the European Union. Gladly I would go a last round, perhaps you could briefly pause and consider, is there otherwise something in this connection which I have just explained, i.e. connection to mutual support within the EU on the one hand or even more generally, are there other topics which have thought about in the course of the discussion, which you would still like to address, which you think, that was also for me now missing or a very important topic? Then gladly, DEFG1_M1-

DEFG1_M1: -I thought about this military aspect at the very beginning. I myself am conscientious objector [laughs], but nevertheless and especially in this current situation with this Ukraine-Russia conflict, there you can see simply how powerless the EU actually is. So the USA is the actual game partner for Russia. The EU has no great weight, you know. So one feels a bit powerless also. So, actually, one should be able to oppose something, yes, because if I ask myself the question, would I personally be willing to somehow serve as a soldier in some crisis area? No, I am a conscientious objector. Yes, so I think it's a super difficult question but I just wanted to bring in this military side.

(short pause)

DEFG1_M2: Yes DEFG1_M1 has just nudged me again in a direction and I thought now also. So, autonomy somehow for the EU in terms of decision-making would be something that I would wish more for the future, even with such big issues. So now of course it is a world where everything is interconnected and that you have to consider many things. But I would wish that Europe tries more to make more European decisions than perhaps decisions initiated by China through pressure on individual countries or decisions initiated by the Americans with regard to some countries. That Europe, if it succeeds to strengthen the community somehow in the future in such a way that it tries to make a decision first of all with a European perspective and perhaps to say also to the Americans, we see you, why you do not want to orient yourselves perhaps in that direction. So that one succeeds to form a counter-pole to the other big powers in the world and just speaks with a common voice. Whether it succeeds, that will be exciting to see.

(short pause)

[01:29:48]

DEFG1_M3: I think, what we can observe is that the EU has a legitimate administration, but no legitimate leadership. And if that is not there, then there is no leadership. Whether Mr. Scholz will bring the leadership that we’ve ordered also another question ( ). There are two exceptions. I think we have a leadership function and that is induced by the EU, not the member states, in the area of competition law, in the area of data protection. There we are leading in the sense of moving ahead and getting things done. The rest of the EU is an administrative construct, not a leadership construct. And this with the consequence that we then also get no leadership where one would be necessary like now. Where factually, yes, the security situation not just of Ukraine is negotiated but the security situation of all western Europe is negotiated, and then the USA negotiates with Russia about us, not with us. And we get delivered what we ordered. That does not need to surprise us.

(short pause)

DEFG1_F4: I think that also an exciting question is, how could this current monetary union perhaps also develop into such a political union? So is it desired at all? And if so, to what extent in terms of values and so on, different histories. Then in terms of international cooperation. How is the whole thing developing in terms of defense policy? What has just been mentioned, NATO and so on, Russia, USA. And another point is also the consideration of how Germany can be positioned in such a way that it really continues to be one of the leading economic powers. So whether it be for example, if you look at all the big corporations, also the share prices, so Apple, Google, Microsoft and so on. It is not without reason that they are all based in the USA. How can we make sure that we create such framework conditions here for such corporations that bring a lot of money to Germany such as Tesla, for example, in Berlin or Brandenburg, so that they can position themselves here, so to speak, because this would naturally solve many problems, in quotation marks, such as unemployment and structural weaknesses. Elon Musk, well, you can say whatever you want about him, but de facto he's doing a lot in the area of digitalization, WLAN and so on. Structural improvement. Yes.-

DEFG1_M5: -So I always think about how the complexity can somehow still be managed. [laughing] That also sounds a bit like this. So who basically does what? Who makes which decisions? Do the individual states give up even more power in order to come to EU decisions? How do you really balance the game of powers in such a way that everyone is satisfied and still remains together without, well, while maintaining the sense of community? That is a great art. And I don't know how to steer that with mechanisms. That is not only bureaucracy, that no longer understands, but that all feel comfortable and have freedom in the decision-making possibilities between the various parliaments, governments. Yes. I am also finished.-

DEFG1_M6: -[clears throat] What concerns me personally is, I work in the IT industry and in topics of digitalization, innovation; the EU is simply much too slow. If, for example, 5G expansion, the question was, do we take the technology from the U.S. or China? Cloud. Do they want to develop a European cloud in Europe now? Currently USA, China. If they say at some point we no longer provide you with the data, we cut you off from the data in Germany, so to speak, we no longer have any access to our own data, they are all in the U.S. and thus we make ourselves completely dependent on others, especially in this area, but simply because the EU is too slow in this area. Because when 5G, when they've done research on it in the U.S., the EU starts five years later or something. By the time it is really ready for the market or would be relevant to introduce into the market, we are already much too late to have any supplier who can even bid for it. And that's how I see it from my point of view because I work in the industry, will become increasingly important in the future and will always be an important factor, because we are working on machines and partly no more people. We have predictive maintenance. And these data are also in the USA. That means that our machines, our entire production will simply come to a standstill in the future. And that's something that I personally find important, where the EU still has to do a lot, in any case, to make itself less dependent.

(short pause)

((M: Thank you very much. As I said, I could talk to you for much longer. I would like to thank you very much, also on behalf of the team and now I will end the recording. If I can manage that technically.))