M: So, once again I welcome you and say thank you for being here for our focus group discussion. To begin, you all have paper and pens with you. You can use them for this first question, you don't have to. But I would ask you to write or remember, what are the first three thoughts that come to your mind when you hear the European Union or the EU? You can also use keywords. (short pause) First thoughts when you hear the European Union or the EU. (long pause) [00:01:58] Okay this time to start off, I would maybe have you go around the room once and DEFG3_M1 if you don't mind?

DEFG3_M1: So what I wrote down for three points?-

M: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -Or generally explain those as well?-

M: -Exactly, you can also explain.-

DEFG3_M1: -Okay, so as a first point I wrote down especially economic union. The European Union is often called a peace alliance, but if you look at de facto when it was founded as a coal and steel union, then if you look at how it has been shaped neoliberally since the 1980s, which is by the way also a point that I wrote down, how the power relations are within the European Union, how the inequality within the European Union is growing but accordingly other people are getting richer. That it is primarily about an economic union, to develop competitive advantages, to establish free market and accordingly also what, I think Hayek it was back in 30's, the 30's it was, he had once written an essay about it, that his, his idea of the economic union, the European Union has prevailed relatively blatantly meanwhile. And relatively undemocratic I wrote down. If one looks at the last, the electoral participation in the European, thus in the European election, those are relatively low. Which, I think, is also related to the fact that there is no uniform framework of interpretation in the European Union. Everybody is more or less trapped in their own nation state and sees their own advantages and disadvantages but less the big picture. So I myself, I don't know, associate myself less with Portuguese than with, I don't know, a country that is perhaps a bit closer or vice versa or the country in which you live. And if you look at it, the European Parliament has the right to make proposals to the EU Commission, but they don't really have to accept them, they can make their own laws and contracts, etc., exactly. Therefore, so much for now perhaps.-

M: I forgot to give my name myself [laughs]. Right, now DEFG3_F2.-

DEFG3_F2: -I kept it a bit more general, not so political. The very first thing I thought of was the European flag-.

M: -The European what?-

DEFG3_F2: -The flag. So with the stars, that was the first one where I thought, so okay. Then the second topic is for me, travel. That you can travel relatively easily within the EU as an EU citizen, so if I see that from my perspective. And I also find that the EU or altogether very many topics that you can relate to the EU, is very present in the news. That's why I have these three areas.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: Okay. The first thing I wrote down was Pulse of Europe. That kind of came back to me right away. It's such a, I don't know if you know it like that, because an acquaintance of ours is very active. People who are very committed to the EU and also in different European countries and also always on the road with these flags. So that's also totally part of it for me, this flag. Then I wrote down, so EU between USA and Russia at the moment, that the EU acts like on a level with national states, so to speak, although it herself is not a nation state and so actually quite unique in the world in the position. And then I thought of the Brexit and because you, DEFG3_M1, have just also said that one perhaps as an individual does not really know what the EU means, that one now perhaps notices with the Brexit, yes only when it is suddenly no longer there one notices where the EU was present everywhere and where it had influence. And exactly, that's why the Brexit.-

DEFG3_M4: -I think first of the solidary community, which it should be, in contrast to you, DEFG3_M1, you think directly of economic interests above all. So I also do not believe that the ideal is so fulfilled, but nevertheless it comes to my mind first because it should create or also creates a certain balance between the states. Then I also think of the economy and the common currency above all, which simplifies a lot and also, yes, simplifies the, the cross-border trade, so quite practically in my life. So if you order something, you'd rather order it in the EU than in the USA, because then there's customs, then it doesn't arrive, and yes. And then practically the open borders, I think of vacations in the Balkans or something like that, where you drive through many countries and only see very moderate borders and then when you really reach the European border, it's a very strong gradient when you drive out, how easy it is to get out and when you drive in, it's a real hurdle and also a bit of a deterrent, I think. So, yeah personally I definitely found that to be the case.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: Interesting, these are three points that have already been mentioned in a similar form by the previous speakers. The first thing that actually popped into my head is also this freedom of travel as an EU citizen, which is quite often encountered even if you want to go on vacation somewhere, France, Italy, and that is no longer a problem at all, because it's simply uncomplicated. The second, a somewhat more negative point, is intransparency, that’s how I phrased it. Intransparency on the one hand, which institution within the EU has which responsibilities, also in this, yes, in this constitutional system. Then intransparency a bit, for me now as a CITIZEN OF THE EU when, for example, national law applies, when EU law applies and what responsibilities there are. And intransparency also to a certain extent in the problem of lobbying, which, I think, is always quite strongly connected with the EU. Also felt stronger than with local or national politics, that one, yes, assumes a great influence of the economy on the EU and I also do a bit [laughs]. And the third thing I wrote down is the EU as a product above all of decades of peace in Europe. Of course, to some extent at the moment possibly also as a peacemaker or as a peacekeeper, but above all also as a product first of all of a longer peace process, fortunately.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M6: The first thing that came to my mind was economic cooperation, because in the political measures it has always been somehow the main focus. And somehow that, yes, the most important basis somehow of the cooperation in general, but which was also, yes, the method somehow to keep peace. The second thing that was mentioned several times was the Schengen Agreement, which came to my mind or which I associated with the EU. And the third is actually quite a contrast to the Schengen Agreement and the open borders in the EU and indeed, yes, was already mentioned a bit the closing-off of the external borders and there also somehow a bit, yes, the own principles are not so preserved which one always claims to uphold.

(short pause)

M: Thank you very much. Does anyone want to respond or add to any of the inputs now?

[00:09:52]

DEFG3_M1: Yes. I would add to DEFG3_M4 on the solidarity issue. I wouldn't go along with that. If you look at the crisis in Greece alone, so the near state bankruptcy and look at how then alone in our country here the discourse had suddenly spilled over in ‘the lazy Greek does not work, relies on our pocket’. In the end, we profitted from it, are one of the richest countries in the EU, set with France primarily the tone. And if you then look at how suddenly an ECB {European Central Bank} as an incredibly strong institution has imposed an austerity program on the Greeks, everything was privatized there that could somehow be silvered and gold-plated, I think it is difficult with a solidarity idea that somehow plays a role. And if you maybe, I don't know, ask around a little bit in general, then somehow it's often oneself that comes first, or one's own nation that comes first instead of the others, at least that's how I feel. And also what you say about the currency, that it simplifies a lot of things. I think that is mainly a point of view in which economic country you live, so how economically strong it is positioned. If you think about it, the southern European countries have lived above all in their economy from the fact that they could devalue their currency, which they can no longer do with the euro, because it is simply set by the ECB, the rate of the euro. The ECB is responsible for whether the euro is devalued or not. We have an interest in it remaining relatively stable for our trade, because we are an exporting country. Greece, for example, rather not. Spain, Portugal rather not. Their economy is, yes, [laughs] more or less in the crapper because they can no longer pursue their own, the old strategy of their own currency, namely devaluation, in order to promote their exports. Or imports, depending on whether you revaluate or devalue. That's why I wouldn't go along with those two points. I would say that the currency has made many things easier for some countries, but for others, above all, it has also made things more difficult and that the idea of solidarity, yes, I don't really see that at the moment.-

M: -Before we go on, anything to add?-

DEFG3_M4: -Well, that's more of a, well, as silly as it sounds, that's more of an emotional thing, the things that come to my mind and I can see that you are, I think, more well-founded. So especially with the economic stuff. I think what you say is probably all true, I would also accept that. The solidarity community, that is, yes, that is just such an ideal, actually. And exactly, one comes first for oneself, I agree with you completely. That certainly also applies to the EU and exactly Greece, Italy, Portugal, which you mentioned. You're probably right, I'm not well versed in the subject matter.-

M: -That’s, I want to emphasize, but completely irrelevant and-

DEFG3_M4: -Yes.-

M: -You can answer on different levels, feelings, knowledge, whatever. That's all interesting and nice to hear and interesting for us. And following on from that would be my next question, how would you then describe your general position now, attitude or even feeling towards the EU? Now we can also be more open now or write down. So, how would you describe your general position, attitude or feeling towards the European Union?

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: In itself very positive. I also think a little bit now, following on from the discussion before, simply because the idea is so important. The idea of cooperation in Europe. But what always fails a little bit because of reality, maybe also because of individual national interests. We have already addressed the point of solidarity in relation to, yes, a monetary union; that then, it seems, solidarity also quickly reaches its limits. For example, when it comes to finances, when it comes to economic cooperation, but also the point of closing off the external borders. That is also an ideal. Yes, you actually give yourself the ideal that for all Europeans these borders are open, freedom to travel, it is very easy can work or live for every EU citizen in another EU country. But then with the people who live outside the EU borders, also still in Europe and then also beyond, those, yes one gives not always the same right or one does not treat them in the same way. That's why I would also say that for me personally, it is always a great pity that one, so just these ideals that they get quite quickly to their limits, their reality. And that is definitely a drawback that clouds the actually very positive picture that I have a little bit.-

M: -Others?

(short pause)

DEFG3_M1: I'm rather critical of the whole thing. The free movement of people, the free movement of workers, the fact that you can work in any country, has also led to major distortions. If we look at the Tönnies meat factories. Most of the workers there are Romanian guest workers, if they are still called that at all - I don't know the official term. But those who work atypically under precarious employment conditions, in, yes, we have now also seen it in the Corona pandemic, crappy working conditions, are crammed into some small rooms. There are newspaper articles where it is reported that they partially camped in the forest and live in their own feces, because they are just so badly paid but actually have no other choice. Accordingly, however, jobs are also devalued here. People who have a company, such as now just Tönnies or also, if you look in the carework sector, there are also often people from Romania and so forth employed, because it is simply cheaper short-term, but accordingly other workers, other employees, or occupational groups are put under pressure and just blackmailed to say, ‘Yes, if you do not work cheaper or temporary, etc., I can also take it from another country cheaper employees, who of course earn more with us than at home, etc.’. I see this as difficult and, as I said, the other points that I mentioned earlier and also the question of democracy in the EU. So I had already said that earlier, relatively intransparent with the parliaments, with the Commission, with the EU Council, everything there, with the institutions, ECJ {European Court of Justice} and European Central Bank and above all also that the European treaties that were adopted, also in the Treaty of Maastricht and Lisbon, as far as I know, are in part more difficult to overturn than constitutions of their own countries and accordingly then all at once can be made provisions from the EU level on nation states, but which have actually elected democratic governments, which then cannot enforce their actual democratically legitimized objectives. Therefore, yes, rather critical of the EU. And perhaps, what I would add is, I would say on the basis of the points that the EU above all also massively drives social inequality, which is still negotiated to be combatted at the national level, not at the EU level. At the EU level, rather agricultural law, etc. is negotiated. And accordingly it is not only an inequality between the countries, but also a class issue, as in the topic of free movement of workers alone. That then all of a sudden precariously employed people suffer from it and people who have a lot of money, for example, through the free movement of people, can invest their capital in apartments in other countries and thereby make profits, which they could not do before.-

M: -We have very critical now, we have more positive, how do others see it? Attitude, position and feeling?-

DEFG3_F3: -You also talked about the fact that if EU law, I think, or the EU is more or less above the national governments, that could also be bad, because that is less democratically legitimized. But a few weeks or months ago there was a case in Poland where the court, I don't know if you call it the constitutional court, I don't know it well enough. But they made decisions where it was said at the EU level that it's not legitimate or it's not legal how they decide. And then there was this, I think, like a daily rate that was very high set until these laws would be overturned again or these decisions had to be reversed, that kind of thing. Where I think that's actually a positive example where you see that the EU courts have provided more democracy in the nation states. Yes, so as a counterexample to that.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M6: Yes, in general I have mixed feelings about the EU. So there are many positive sides or in my opinion positive sides, which have already been mentioned. So, for example, EU law, I think, is already a pretty big achievement that it applies in all countries. But it is then again a bit of a question of how it is implemented, that just many people actually do not have access to these basic rights. (short pause) Yes, then Schengen and generally economic diplomatic cooperation is also somehow an achievement, especially after the Second World War and many conflicts, which were carried out before somehow then rather militarily, yes. Yes and however, then it is as DEFG3_M1 has also said above all that, well, states like Germany just really benefit from the EU and others just not at all and others then suffer again from the fact that the EU, that states like Germany also has for example development programs in many countries, from which but actually mainly rich people benefit and then also again Germany, because Germany then has investments in countries like Poland, yes and actually benefits more than Poland.

(short pause)

[00:20:19]

DEFG3_F2: I would now go down a bit from this political level, because I honestly am not all that familiar with it. I would now rather say related to myself that I am rather neutral, with a tendency to the positive attitude towards the EU, now like with regard to myself, to my life. Because I am of the opinion that I get to experience here as a citizen in Germany rather the positive effects of the EU and the opinion that I like do not yet really have negative effects of the EU, as one hears about them for example from media with, topic external borders, that I was not yet directly confronted with them. Yes, accordingly, more inclined to be positive. But even if you take into account the media impressions, I sometimes wonder whether you can be so proud to live in the EU when you see how some people, for example the guest workers or, I don't know what you call it exactly, who work in the factories, as DEFG3_M1 called it, how you deal with them in part or also at the external borders of the EU, I sometimes ask myself or whether you can be so proud.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M4: So I see it also or want to see it also rather from the personal-emotional level, like DEFG3_F2 and not so political. Probably it is selfish but one is doing well in the EU, especially as a German. Exactly, one benefits, as many have said, but that naturally, or yeah with high probability or surely on the backs of others, which were also already mentioned. And, the EU acts like, yes partly like a kind of nation state or like the U.S., as a great power. And I often have the thought, also with regard the U.S., that this is such an over-extension of their own, yes, ideas, ideals contrasted to the rest of the world. And I sometimes have that with the EU, this feeling. So I cannot base that up spontaneously with good examples. But it is often the case that the EU thinks the right thing and does the right thing, and this then also applies to others and is, of course, due to the size and the power and the possibilities of influence, this is then also partly enforced and is then also like this. So I am also, yes, ambivalent.-

DEFG3_F3: -I wanted to say something again about DEFG3_M6’s statement earlier. Because it was said that we in Germany benefit so much from it and other countries, poorer countries do not. Like Poland, because you mentioned Poland as an example, we exploit them a little bit when we do things there and I think that if you look now, Norway is not in the EU and doesn't want to get in and neither does Switzerland and Great Britain is out, and countries like Albania and Turkey, do they still want to get in? So you can see that the rich countries are not interested in joining the EU, but the poorer countries, which would be more likely to become recipients, of course, would want to join. So isn't that an example, doesn't that actually show that it's positive on the whole for the countries that are poorer and countries like Norway, Switzerland don't need to enter and perhaps are positioned economically more like Germany, yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -DEFG3_M1 to DEFG3_F3, pronounced right?-

DEFG3_F3: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -Okay, I would argue, they don't want to come in because they have little objection to the economic dominance of Germany and France and actually England, which are out now, but would suffer from it, than if they would join. Not because of the poor countries, where in part also actually countries were included in the EU, which has made little economic sense for them, I would say now, which was just sensible at that time in the great system conflict between capitalism, USA and Soviet Union, "communism" in quotation marks or socialism at that moment, just in order not to accuse them of socialism, like as an argument. And accordingly the Scandinavian countries have no interest in going in because they themselves do not profit from it compared to the economic powers Germany and France and less because they are afraid of not being able to exploit.-

DEFG3_F3: -Yes, exactly, they would rather lose money through the EU, so to speak, and perhaps also no longer decide certain things so freely, because there are EU directives and for example Norway then drills oil or so that would then no longer be their decision, but an EU decision or something. But then it is just good for Germany. Because we would also, if we would leave the EU, which would not happen, but then it would also be economically good for us, because then we would not have to put more money somewhere in EU-wide projects, from which we rather profit less, because we are already doing well. So it's actually a good thing that we stay in and continue to co-finance.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M1: Unfortunately, I do not know the exact figures, but alone, as I said, with the Greek sovereign default, I no longer know how many billions there were, but Germany gained from it, in money. Even if we have put money into the rescue package, which was never touched and with the others, so over the years in general, where Germany is part of the EU, as far as I know also. I don't know, unfortunately, as I said, the exact numbers. I can't explain the context of it, but in that sense I would say that we're not putting a lot of money into it, but we're earning money from it above all.-

M: -We are now discussing advantages and disadvantages, but also criticism and what is positive. We can go on for a longer time, but I would also like to ask in another direction and that would be more of a hypothetical idea. So please imagine that there is a natural disaster, like an earthquake, flood or forest fire in one of the EU member states. How do you think the EU should react? (short pause) The EU and or one of the member states?-

DEFG3_M4: -Well, I think that the Corona crisis and the peaks at the beginning showed quite well that the EU and the member states now feel emotionally connected in a certain way, apart from treaties and politics and all sorts of things. And the, yes there are not the big hurdles to help each other. It, sure it was probably also blown up big in the media and made the most of that some people were flown out of Italy and yes, intensive care, here support, there support. But I think that if it weren't for the EU, it would be more complicated or not so self-evident that the states support each other at such a low, low, low-threshold level and that, yes, is actually to be welcomed, is nice and is good that it exists in this way.-

M: -If I could just maybe ask a quick follow-up question, to DEFG3_M4. If I understand correctly, this assistance within the EU would not be as either complicated or perhaps not as self-evident as that is. Did I understand correctly?-

DEFG3_M4: -Exactly.-

M: -And maybe why, why do you think that?-

DEFG3_M4: -I think because we, solidarity community, this keyword again, because we basically already have such a sense of community, yes, which is simply what is simply there through the EU. And that would not be there without the EU. Then there would certainly be small groups and countries that work together and belong together somehow, geographically or culturally or geologically, that the Italians somehow and the Austrians, because they are in the Alps, somehow support each other in any Alpine-specific disasters. But this basic understanding, yes, just comes from the EU, and that's a good thing.-

M: -Any others.-

DEFG3_F3: -I think that is also not only so emotionally we are close to each other, but the EU simply offers such discourse spaces and is much more in the constant exchange in the countries among themselves. And that leads then to the fact that one can react so perhaps then WELL and then just exchange intensive care patients where there is space. Exactly, these discorse spaces, or I do not know whether there is a better expression for it, but that is, I think, right, a really big advantage of the EU then, and probably also in other emergency situations, any spontaneous things. That this can be such a decisive advantage, that one is always in exchange and can then also adjust well to new things together.-

[00:30:15]

DEFG3_M6: -Yes that is definitely a huge advantage, I think also. And then also an advantage is that the EU is also comparatively just quite rich and could offer support. And the question was what we find how the EU should react in the climate catastrophe within the EU or?-

M: -I didn't mean specifically climate, but such crises can of course become more frequent, in the wake of climate change. Wasn't my term but gladly too.-

DEFG3_M6: -Okay.-

M: -If you link that to it, gladly, you can elaborate.-

DEFG3_M6: -So I would have, I understood it that way, because I would have linked it somehow with that, and then in my opinion somehow the right reaction would be to provide funds or somehow support. Precisely because it is now simply going to happen more and more frequently, within the EU as well, and that it could ultimately affect every country in the EU. Or rather, if a climate disaster were to occur in Germany, as is now the case in Ahrweiler, for example, then perhaps not poorer, well it is clear that then not poorer people, poorer countries would have to be supporters, because Germany is not dependent on it, but yes. So you should support each other or especially the poorer, richer countries support the poorer countries. Because it will happen now simply more and more often, even if one actually already tries to prepare for disasters.-

DEFG3_M1: -So also for the scenario, there is a catastrophe, whether it is climate or another catastrophe. I would also like to see support, whether monetary or even personnel on the ground, but above all unconditional, except perhaps the condition that it is about overcoming the crisis. But not, as in the case of Greece, where we already had a crisis, with sanctions and a huge austerity program and that, in the end, a state saves itself from ruin. And economically structured in such a way that it somehow fits into some neoliberal ideal, which is actually not perhaps the meaning behind it, I would wish. And I also think that support would be needed beforehand, not only in the event of a catastrophe, but also beforehand in the form of a kind of state financial equalization, as we perhaps have here in the individual {German} states, but also an economic financial equalization among the states, although I believe that this is where solidarity stops in the EU. That then all of a sudden the citizens of the individual nation states would not be ready for it. But it would make sense, I think, to somehow try to create a relative financial equalization in a union based on solidarity.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: I can only agree with the previous speakers on the ideas. So now really back to this specific case, natural disaster in any form, unforeseen disaster. I think that we in the EU are fortunately already so far that it is, when it comes to staff, equipment that is needed in the first moment, that this works uncomplicated and there are no more hurdles to enable the immediate aid. I think that is the most important point, but I would also agree with DEFG3_M1 that even if there is a catastrophe in a poorer EU country, monetary aid should be provided if it is needed and that it should not be linked to conditions, later repayments or interest in any form, but that it should take place without conditions because of this idea of solidarity.-

M: -DEFG3_M5, if I may ask. So who should pay for these costs then, according to your idea?-

DEFG3_M5: -I think that here also generally a system must be found in the sense of each as he can. I do not think that you can get it, with equal shares or something through all EU countries. Because it is perhaps also sensible with the future in view that there is perhaps a kind of fund, which the EU can build, in which then is also paid in different proportions, which then perhaps also in future can enable UNCOMPLICATED and quick monetary aid for more frequent disasters, which are triggered by climate change.-

DEFG3_M4: -So I simply think of insurance, when you hear that. It's more or less an insurance on a multi-state level. And we all pay into our health insurance according to how we can, as a percentage of our gross salary or whatever, and accordingly EU members also pay into the EU fund, to put it simply, according to their ability. And yes, if one builds up an insurance, it must be, yes, so it will not be called insurance of course but there are then also simply rules, regulating what is paid out where. But then it is also unconditional. And yes, the cancer patient, he will, he takes a lot of money from our health care system, but he can still afford it, because he is just insured and so we can then also, yes, share risks and the small they are then bearable and not individual states go into ruin, in any way.

(short pause)

M: DEFG3_F2, if I may just ask, do you have a feeling or impression of how you would imagine it in such a case? Specifically such a natural disaster, or whether there would have to be something in the EU or organized in some other way?-

DEFG3_F2: -Yes, so I would imagine that there must definitely be something in terms of financial resources, but also technical possibilities of various aid groups, how to call it, I do not know what else to call it, to be able to provide acute assistance, because I also think that if we take now for example flood disaster as an example, I think the people on the ground who are acutely affected by it, they are not exactly enthusiastic about it, when they learn through the media, yes, the EU Parliament is thinking about voting on what you could possibly do, like in a week. That is of relatively little interest to the people who are acutely affected then, I think. It is more a matter of being able to act quickly and, then in a further step, I would find preventive measures, not only the financial on a financial level, but perhaps also considered in the scientific direction. That one pushes research to be able to act possibly now in the area of natural disasters also preventively to prepare also a bit far better.-

M: -DEFG3_M1, thanks for the patience.-

DEFG3_M1: -Yes to DEFG3_M4, to the insurance. I have only concerns that there is then, as in our health system, suddenly a private insurance, where the rich pay [laughs] and so I would only try to prevent that. And what I think is perhaps also important is the aspect of our own national debt. That there is not the classic limit of, I think, three percent of the gross domestic product, if I'm aware of it correctly, which was set at the time, just randomly, because France was like at 2.8 percent and the holy trinity sounds just fine, but then just that would be loosened or in general, that the limit is not so extreme, or now currently there is effort to introduce even something like a ”black zero”. I think it's also important in crisis situations that a state can help itself at the moment by taking on debt because it makes sense to do so.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M4: Can I ask you {DEFG3_M1} a completely different question? What do you think about these Corona-EU aid funds and aid money?-

DEFG3_M1: -Good question.-

DEFG3_M4: -Okay. I feel like you're very interested or well versed in all these debt issues as well. And so I would have been interested in what you thought about that. Because that's actually been a very solidarity thought. That's how it was transported, at least that's how it came across to me. Do you think that was in solidarity or was right or was good or?-

DEFG3_M1: -So I-

DEFG3_M4: -Do you think that was wrong and unfair in the end?-

DEFG3_M1: -I've noticed that with the euro bonds and the like. But, so I also know who advocates it, who does not, also from which political directions partly but have not really dealt with it currently, so I cannot say anything about it.- (overlapping)

DEFG3_M4: -All right.-

M: -If I may ask DEFG3_M4 then. Can you maybe elaborate on that? You've said your opinion on it now but maybe elaborate a little bit? If you like regarding, to Corona.-

DEFG3_M4: -To the Corona aid?-

M: -Exactly, to Corona-aid.-

[00:39:53]

DEFG3_M4: -So I think I have a very [sound of a glass] superficial opinion or attitude towards it, because I haven't followed it very closely. But yes, in the back of my mind I have that Italy somehow got extreme money, also linked to, I don't know, were there any conditions attached to it in the end, about it being used sustainably. Maybe I'm mixing things up there too. So I don't think I can give you a real opinion on that.-

M: -It doesn't matter. I- because you said that this is solidarity, that's what I meant. Maybe you can back up why you think that's important or what you mean by that.-

DEFG3_M4: -Yes, so the basic idea of it was that economically weaker states or states more affected by the Corona pandemic are supported by compensation payments and strengthen their economy and can rebuild or build differently also. And the basic idea is good, so that sounds very good.-

M: -That was the example of Corona relief fund, and then when we are just discussing about help in emergency situations, natural disasters. DEFG3_M6, I think you also said in this case that the rich should help the poor more. Did I understand that correctly? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Is that a principle, a principle?-

DEFG3_M6: -So I mean that if an acute emergency situation arises in a state that does not have funds to rebuild something and to help people in need somehow and to provide accommodation somehow, that then states that would have the means to do so and that could also provide support without having any major negative consequences, that they do that. And if now, for example, in Germany or in one of the richer countries in the EU, yes, a catastrophe would arise, the states could just again rather cope with it themselves than that they would need support from poorer countries. In other words, there is support in one direction and less in the other.-

M: -Then maybe we stay on this topic of emergency aid but in a different context. If we imagine or imagine that there would be an economic crisis, like the euro and financial crisis again. And some countries are more affected or affected than others. How should Germany react, in this case? We imagine that there would be an economic crisis again, like the euro or financial crisis and other countries are or some countries are affected more, are affected harder than others. What do you think, how should Germany react?

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: So I think we all agree that countries that are not doing so well should be helped financially, because in the end the citizens can be very, very worse off if the country is in such a crisis. And I think we had already mentioned it earlier, or you, DEFG3_M1 have already mentioned it, that if such aid funds are then linked to so many conditions, that in the end nothing good comes out of it for the country. I do not know enough economically here to be able to suggest now concretely what, but I would say, generally speaking, that precisely the conditions must be somehow realistic. So that one cannot set up an ideal and we Germans say of course then Germany is financially the ideal, then it would be like us and that is somehow unrealistic. So that you have to accommodate the people in Greece, the countries, and should somehow set realistic conditions or offer realistic help. And to bring the people or the country on a path that is good in the long term, and not in the short term, or that maybe helps somewhere but then in the long term does not help at all, or not even in the short term. So somehow more sustainable aid that also reaches citizens directly.-

M: -If I may ask, DEFG3_F3, and that doesn't have to be financially, fiscally technically correct here. But simply could you perhaps explain what you think, simply what it, what with realistic or long-term help? A country that is in economic distress, economic crisis, or whatever and Germany must then help, in your opinion, then it could be conditions but they would have to be realistic or long-term oriented?-

DEFG3_F3: -Okay. So I think in Germany the administrative apparatus is very large and very precise compared to other countries, and in other countries and that may seem strange to us because we are used to Germany, it may not be like that. And that everything is so well timed and everything is so lengthy and also totally precise. And that you can maybe start with such processes, that countries are less corrupt, that in very small things, like private loans or in private house building or something, that it somehow runs better financially [laughs]. I can't explain that very well, but maybe something like that comes to my mind, that you start with such processes, yes.-

M: -No, thank you. Okay, how do the others see it?-

DEFG3_F2: -I would say above all that it is important that when a country or a state is in crisis, that it is not only determined from the external side, what does the country need now, what do we have to give the country, what are the next steps, but that one also includes the country itself which is stuck in the crisis, and perhaps also from a cultural, social perspective take different facets with, yes, into the discussion or debate about what exactly are now the next meaningful steps. Because in the end it is about the country or the state that is specifically affected and not, okay it is also about the external aid, so the countries that give the aid, so to speak, but primarily it should also help the country sustainably.-

DEFG3_M1: -I would go along there to a large extent; I would go along, now with what DEFG3_F2 and DEFG3_F3 have said to a large extent. I also think unconditional loans are necessary, just alone to restore the creditworthiness of the ailing country. Where perhaps other investors due to rating agencies now have less confidence in it then. But above all, I would not only think about firefighting, but perhaps take a step back. We must finally implement a financial transaction tax so that hypertrading is no longer possible, so that it is no longer worthwhile to bet so much on any shares and funds, and so that bubbles can form in the first place. At the same time, as far as the financial crisis is concerned, if we look at the fact that at the same time, what's his name, (short pause) Clinton at that time massively expanded the welfare state in the U.S. but then said, we promise every citizen, every citizen definitely, you get a loan and should secure your pension and your social security somehow, and then all of a sudden through rating, rating agencies and house purchases, which one could not actually afford, something like that was set up in the first place, that one then suddenly perhaps takes a step back and says that there is a need for strong welfare states, even if it is perhaps at the EU level instead of at the national level, and less dependence on the financial market. Because I think this is a crucial point why financial crises occur in the first place. Because in financial market capitalism, the dependence of the EU and individual nation states on the financial market is far too great.-

M: -If I may ask DEFG3_M1, so do you think that Germany, referring in the case now to Germany, it can also be the EU in general, but now referring to Germany, that then the government should strongly advocate such measures?-

DEFG3_M1: -For measures like financial transaction tax and independence from? I think that should happen before that, not just when it's too late, but already now. We should have learned from the financial crisis in 2008 that this is the case and that this has long been superfluous and cannot wait. But I also think that individual profit interests of more or less many are behind it, but just the vast majority and we have seen it in the financial crisis, the financial crisis has cost every German household, I think, 3000 euros at that time. Nobody earned anything from it, they paid for it. But the bankers who speculated with it and the rating agencies earned a pretty penny. That's why I would say that it's better to act NOW, even better yesterday, than when it's already too late.-

M: -Thank you. What do others think then? It doesn't have to be Germany either. Also in relation to other EU countries. How should other EU countries react if one or a few member states were in economic distress? (long pause) Would that be different depending on the country, who helps how much?-

[00:50:11]

DEFG3_M5: -So, yes, probably it would be also differently necessary or in different measure necessary, which state can provide how much help. I think that is then, even if it, if now such an economic crisis situation would affect only some states, that then nevertheless also a European solution is necessary, which must then also be monetary. But there I would fall back also again on the similar points, as they were already mentioned, that then, well, a model, as it for example applied for Greece in the previous financial crisis, that then strict austerity policy was imposed and these loans then again, yes actually became a profit for the richer EU nations, a profit for the richer EU nations, that is just a problem. I also think that the nation state, which is doing less well, must be given more freedom. This can also be done by offering financial assistance. But also by intervening less in this national policy, as it was, for example, quite strongly in Greece by the EU, which ties this aid like to this austerity policy. And that is, I think, then also a chance actually, to invest in a poorer EU country, then for example in the direction of infrastructure or sustainability. With the Corona aid funds, it was also partly then tied to the, to sustainability purposes, these monetary funds, which is possible. That would be one thing. But also, what you see now for example in Spain and in Portugal, that there is also such a high unemployment rate and then young, good, educated people in Portugal and in Spain prefer to live in other EU countries, where they have even better job opportunities and that is also a point where you should then perhaps help. That it is also said as in a welfare state it is then there again, the people who are trained at universities, at universities, however well, then just also there again to find work. That is, I think, then also what more sustainable help can provide than just so shortly only monetary means or so briefly one, yes to set such an austerity course, which can create only very short-term remedy.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M4: I think that looking only to the outside world and to the big picture sometimes clouds the fact that every country should and must prepare itself individually for certain conditions that may be caused by natural disasters or something like that, and maybe some things are so specific that other countries can't really provide good help. So just throwing money at it often doesn't help. So actually everyone, I don't know if you can say forced, but it must be promoted that everyone also refers to their, to their own infrastructure and maintains that, which is important for the state itself. So yes there it is perhaps not always the panacea, if then the outer states help, if one, I don't know now, if alpine countries have any problems, then the Spaniards cannot come with heavy equipment, because they have nothing which could function somehow in the Alps, so exemplary, so now figuratively spoken concerning a natural disaster. And everyone should also recognize their own needs and their own weak points and yes, take preventive action against them.-

M: -So if I understand that correctly, then also some kind of form of conditions that are not only austerity related but targeted is useful? We had also heard about sustainable conditions or sustainable changes, measures. Do I understand correctly that you would then see that similarly, DEFG3_M4?-

DEFG3_M4: -Yes. So I, that's just a previous condition, so to speak, that one sets now and says, prepare yourselves well, then one cannot sanction it afterwards and punish, of course. But if you create awareness or perhaps approach the whole thing more scientifically in some places and invest more and also accept more what is said from that side, that can perhaps be a good condition.

(short pause)

M: Okay. Prevention would also be an important form of crisis management, to prevent beforehand. Was that directly to that?-

DEFG3_M1: -I would very briefly say to you, DEFG3_M4 and M. M was talking about a financial crisis and you were talking about a natural disaster. That's why, not that there is a misunderstanding between you guys.-

DEFG3_M4: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -Just wanted to say.-

DEFG3_M4: -I realize that.-

DEFG3_M1: -Okay good because M, you were thinking of a financial crisis, DEFG3_M4 just a natural disaster. Not that DEFG3_M4 is setting different conditions for a financial crisis than for a natural disaster, that's why.-

DEFG3_M4: -For me, a financial crisis is rather abstract, I would say. I come from a trade background, I do manual work, so it's hard for me to grasp things like that, to grasp them and to have good ideas about them. And then I always think to myself, if someone else has no idea of something - so no attack or somehow personally meant -, but if one has no idea of something, so like me now, then I rely on other people and I think about rather for example the natural disaster, because the tangible things. So because exactly to the financial crisis, I honestly cannot think of so much, it's too abstract for me.-

DEFG3_M1: -Just don't misunderstand, I just didn't mean to-.

DEFG3_M4: -Yeah.-

DEFG3_M1: -Misunderstand, that's why.-

DEFG3_M4: -No, thanks.-

M: -Maybe I misunderstood. I was thinking you were using the image of natural disaster and transferring that to financial hardship. That might fit.-

DEFG3_M4: -If you can transfer that, then yes. It wouldn't be clear to me now how you can transfer that-.

M: -So-

DEFG3_M4: -Because to me that, exactly, as I said, that's far away from the reality of my life.-

M: -Okay.-

DEFG3_F3: -With these preventive measures for countries, I think, because you also mentioned this earlier, that this austerity course is not always strictly good. But for example, if countries want to join the EU, they must not be in debt. There is also a percentage, but I don't know if it's three percent or something like that, and that's actually a little bit geared towards making sure that they don't join the EU and then in the next few years it becomes clear that, oh no, their finances are very poor and they actually need really big help right away. So maybe that's a good thing somewhere, this strict austerity course? But I can also see, you can reply right now [laughs], why that doesn't always have to be good when applied to everything, to an entire country. But only that this is perhaps one of these preventive measures related to this financial matter, so a bit. Yes, please [laughing].-

DEFG3_M1: -That is exactly one problem, what was not the case with Greece, Italy and so on at that time. They were not economically on a balanced level, were nevertheless integrated because of the fear of the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union with its system can somehow systemically take the countries, so to speak. The other is, I would say, you can also by taking on debt, for example, then invest in infrastructure, Internet, etc. and upgrade the economic location of their own nation somehow. Therefore, it makes sense sometimes to be economically stable, take on debt, so this is perhaps problematic. The EU has then rather a default, privatizes rather everything, because private enterprise is always more efficient, because the market regulates that already and the state makes anyway everything wrong and that I see as rather problematic. If we think now of our health system alone, one already sees where the market heads in the Corona pandemic, namely that nothing is there. Because efficient is then all of sudden is limited to financial starvation, for example.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: Yes then you can this thought, which is behind - so probably the thought of the EU behind this is the states must not be indebted, if they want to join, the states should be financially, the society should be well off. And that should NOT only be put in the figure of the national debt, but is captured by more indicators. So that one says, the debt can be high, but then it must be invested elsewhere and also be shown in the long term that the debt is then reduced again or so. But that the thought, yes, probably then the same can be, if one must find only perhaps a little more modern indicator for it than just the national debt.-

M: -If we would imagine then now it is Germany that is the country that is badly damaged by a financial crisis and would be dependent on help from the EU and or EU member states. Would you think, also in that case, that Germany should get these supports then, if that is connected to restrictions or rules?

(short pause)

[01:00:00]

DEFG3_M4: So we have said that there should not be too many conditions. I think that is the consensus among all of us for support. But I assume that the EU, as different as the countries are, will be able to agree on a minimum consensus. So there are requirements that simply have to be met in order to cope with a financial crisis and, of course, Germany would have to meet these requirements in exactly the same way, so they won't suddenly be measured by a different yardstick because it's Germany.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: Well, I think you should, I think you should generally tie it to conditions that, for example, should be geared towards making a country more democratic in some way. Or in general or quite bluntly to human rights, although that's not such a problem in Germany on a large scale. But when I think, for example, that Poland somehow has a problem with legalizing abortions, then one could also think about such small problems, that is not a small problem, but such individual problems, and say that if there is a consensus in the EU that this should be legal in a country, in a democracy today, that one should create such a condition. And there are certainly cases like that in Germany. I can't think of anything comparable. But if the EU wants to have something like that as a right for society in its member states, I think you can set that up as a condition in a financial crisis. I don't know if you could think of an example that could be a condition.

(short pause)

M: It could simply be made a condition to get financial aid. Debt, for example, so these are rules. It would be important also what role then does rule compliance play to get help in this financial emergency situation. Can also be answered more generally. So we also heard some comments where prevention should play a role and if prevention was not complied with, also in the financial situation; that is for instance, there is a contribution that was just not made to prevent the occurrence of a crisis. Does that change your opinion or are you sticking to the same principles for example in especially the financial emergency situation?

(short pause)

DEFG3_M6: My opinion would not change, because I think that every state also has interests in somehow preventing and avoiding its own crises. And often it fails in the implementation of laws or yes the implementation of laws. And if a state is then already in an emergency situation or because it simply did not manage to implement, to impose then sanctions or to disadvantage the state somehow still, even further, I would not find so useful.-

M: -If I may ask, briefly, DEFG3_M6, why should one help?-

DEFG3_M6: -Why one should help?-

M: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M6: -Yes, it's a good question. Because many people are suffering from crises, who have no influence on it, under it at all, and need help. And it's somehow then also values of the European Union, which we should stand by, which we should somehow respect and uphold.-

M: -What kind of values?-

DEFG3_M6: -Mh. Well, for example the values, the right to, okay, I don't know what they're called right now, but [laughs]-

M: -That's not a problem. [laughs]-

DEFG3_M6: -The values to security, okay perfect [laughs]. To security, to food, to shelter and yes, European fundamental and human rights.-

DEFG3_M1: -Just briefly, DEFG3_F3 meant, I think, as conditions, humanitarian conditions, which one couples to the support, if I understood that correctly and not debt, as M had said. Or just, that one just, the debt also just, so the example, what you had mentioned now with abortion or whether there is just maybe another one, is rather an understanding of humanitarian conditions, which, I think also, if I understood correctly. Okay, because I think that's something different. And M, could you repeat the question that you just asked? [laughs] Because I didn't quite catch that one, unfortunately.-

M: -I think I forgot myself [laughs]. No-

DEFG3_M1: [laughs]

M: No, whether rules should play a role here at all, for example with regard to prevention, whether that changes whether you help or not in the emergency situation. Spontaneous response to that, DEFG3_M1?-

DEFG3_M1: -So, just to understand if I would say if there are rules there shouldn't be help, if there aren't, there should be help, whether that changes anything, right?-

M: -For example. So does rule compliance play a role for you in deciding to help or not or under what conditions?-

DEFG3_M1: -It depends, so I would say, I think it depends. If you impose rules now, like for example, if I should support you now unconditionally, well, how do you say, financially, but one country for example set the conditions for the other that should also be used to prevent the crisis for example. That is a rule that I can go along with. But I would - or individual people should not be able to pocket that {money}. But if, for example, conditions are suddenly set, as in the case of Greece, which is suddenly supposed to follow a neoliberal ideology, then I would say, that's complete baloney. Because then again individual people profit from it, and it's not about supporting the state or the population of the state somehow financially, to protect them from the crisis, but it's about getting rich from it and somehow bringing the whole country into line with the market and nothing else.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: I also think that you can generally set rules for financial aid in a certain way, if you set them up, for example, so that they are actually compatible with EU directives or with EU projects, for example; so that then, for example, in the abstract somehow nothing is put into fossil fuels in any way; so that then, for example, coal-fired power plants can still be built from these funds, but that then EU projects in the direction of climate neutrality, for example, are adhered to, would be one thing. Where I would not put any rules directly, mh yes, as prerequisite to potential aid, it would be just when it comes to political demands. I think there are also enough other situations in the EU, for example, to preserve human rights, such as the right to abortion, and then to urge, for example, through the European Court of Justice, to comply with them, to implement them. I think that is not, one, that one should not attach these political demands directly to monetary aids. I think that is something that has to be solved via other institutions.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: Well, I think that this should be done through funding. Because I have the feeling that the only thing that works for some governments is to say that you won't get any money if you don't grant certain rights to your citizens. And at the end of the day, in a crisis like this, it's actually society that's in crisis and not the government, because it can only happen that people lose their jobs, but society there, some people lose their livelihood. That you then somehow realize that the government gets money from the EU but actually the government is only in the position to distribute the money to society, that you then already link it to very specific goals so, the money, what should it be used for. And I think that this should be linked to political conditions, because how else can you create a better life for people in other countries, if not by forcing the government through economic things. So I think because you say rather at other levels, I don't know what other levels there are.

[01:08:52]

[door opening; Waiter enters the room to clarify organizational matters. Recording was briefly interrupted.]

[01:09:11]

M: Okay. Who was interrupted right now?-

DEFG3_F3: -Me-

M: -Would you like to finish, DEFG3_F3?-

DEFG3_F3: -I was actually finished, but I can help jump start things again [laughs]. I had just said that I think that economic aid should be linked to political conditions, because I think that you do not have a real alternative, how you can otherwise enforce such things.-

DEFG3_F2: -I also think that overall there should be a certain regulation in any case, in which framework economic assistance should be granted. But if we now come back to the concrete example that Germany is a state that gets into economic distress, I have to say honestly, I have now also noticed a bit in the discussion so far that we all somehow tend to see rather other states in the position of being in need of help or also always referred to examples of other states. And that we ourselves don't see Germany primarily as the country that is endangered or economically endangered and overall, also from my impression, Germany is rather a very strong nat- strong state in the EU and seen as a very stable state. Which is why I could also imagine that, if there are now times so, yes, generally speaking general regulations just for economic emergencies, that it is quite, so that I could imagine that if Germany, as a state that is considered very strong and a stable state, then perhaps it is seen more critically by the other EU states, when it comes to provide concrete assistance, because Germany is now perhaps not the state predistined to be in need of help in this area.-

[01:11:13]

DEFG3_M4: -So what you're talking about, that's exactly how we all saw it, that it's rather the other countries that are the ‘weak’ ones, in quotation marks, but I also believe that it's actually like that. We, before Germany gets into a predicament, so that's very egotistical and somehow exaggerated, but I think before that, it looks really different in other countries, I have like the feeling at least. But you still have to find a consensus on how to, yes, how a strong country would then be supported and about what, what did you say DEFG3_F3, earlier? I wanted to say something about it, and then the man came in. Can you give me a hint?-

DEFG3_F3: -That one-

DEFG3_M4: -Ah exactly, the conditions for the aid also perhaps afterwards. So if we have set conditions beforehand and they have not been fulfilled and a country gets into difficulties, it will then be helped. You also said that there might have to be other ways than the political and monetary ones, that's how I understood you or at least you, DEFG3_M5? I also believe that there is actually nothing that works on this state level except money or yes, political measures. Because this judicial, this overruling of judicial decisions, that was seen in Poland, I think, with the dismissal of judges. I don't know what the status is now, but they were just sentenced to the already mentioned daily rates, which were very high. I don't know, a million euros a day, until that is changed. I don't know if anyone knows how that turned out, but that seems to me to be the only language that can be spoken at such a level that is realistic.-

M: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -To DEFG3_F2: I find it exciting and good what you have noticed that you have brought this to the point again, that we often assume that Germany is not the country that gets into the crisis. And what I have also noticed when we talk about HELP, that we do not think on a European level, but only help between states. An EU Parliament, an EU Council, an EU Commission has not played any role at all at the moment. Where I would just say, what I had said at the beginning, how is it actually with democracy in Europe, if the democratic representative bodies from our perspective do not have a great say, but actually the nation states help or not help somehow according to their own preference.-

M: -Then we’ll leave the the crisis situations, because there are also inequalities between member states, that's clear. But there are also inequalities between people within a country. And then what do you think, should the European Union also have common program, common fund for example, to reduce social inequalities? Even if you think in the face of growing income inequalities, in societies. Why, why not? Directly on this, DEFG3_M1?-

DEFG3_M1: -I would first start by ensuring that there is a uniform tax system. That there are no tax havens within the European Union and other countries that enforce higher taxes. It's always argued that we can't do that, because otherwise investors will somehow run away from us. Which is actually, if you think about it, that there are any sunk costs and path dependencies, etc. is not the case, but is just often argued just to legitimize that just-

M: -If I were to ask a quick follow-up question. Why should there be a single tax system-.

DEFG3_M1: -Okay yes.-

M: -With what reason?-

DEFG3_M1: -Just to levy taxes. To tax people who earn a lot or companies properly. When I consider that suddenly Apple or someone else pays one percent in taxes, Amazon, and actually makes billions in sales, normal citizens have to pay pretty high taxes and we don't make such a huge turnover. That you just levy these taxes and thereby build a European welfare state and also try to redistribute money. And accordingly also redistribute within the countries, but also redistribute between the countries. That is just whether it is now a financial equalization scheme or just whether one says, okay we put together something like a European social state, which currently happens only at the national level and that is completely a national matter of interpretation, in order to fight accordingly social inequality.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M4: I can only agree with you, DEFG3_M1, you have anticipated a lot of what I wanted to say and I believe that the countries differ so much in detail, also in their social systems, in taxes and so on. That in the current situation, I don't think it's realistic to create a balance that satisfies everyone. So there are probably more fundamental things that need to be brought to a consensus, such as taxes, for example, which is probably, yes, the most fundamental thing there, before you can think about it. But exactly, of course, the larger a community is, the smaller is the damage for the individual or also for the individual country, and that is, yes, better cushioned, the social balance.-

DEFG3_M1: -Also now to DEFG3_M4 and generally to the topic. I find, raising taxes is purely theoretically possible, however it is just not done. And I think that on the one hand you can see the neo-liberal flavor behind it, the economic interests and also the power imbalances that are behind it within the EU and the conflicting interests. That you say you won't do it because large corporations etc. have such a big say in it and governments can also be bribed or act in the interests of corporations, so that something like this won't be implemented. It would be possible, but if you look at it from a realpolitik point of view, it is actually an impossibility to ever implement it. Simply because of the power interests behind it or because they are very far away.-

M: -If I record, also from the discussion so far. I mean, it was DEFG3_M5 who pointed out that a crisis could also be an opportunity to help poorer EU countries or to invest in them. If I have taken that correctly, DEFG3_M5, do you also see a relevance to this point? So the EU should have some kind of welfare system or reduce poverty or fight other inequalities?

DEFG3_M5: Yes, I would definitely agree with that. I think that DEFG3_M1 has already addressed a few good points with which the EU can also build up a system with which, yes, funds can be generated. Whether it's a uniform taxation, a corporate tax, for example, or a financial transaction tax, which would also generate revenue that could then be distributed. I don't think that it's always only... we've talked a lot about crisis situations and also aid between states directly. I don't think that it can always work only about that, but I think that the EU should also create means to balance social inequality between societies within the EU think that would then apply to this case.-

M: -If I may ask, would it also be true if it means on balance that Germany pays more in order to reduce the working poverty in another country?-

DEFG3_M5: -Yes, that would not be a condition for me now either, that you would then have to invest more from the German side.-

M: -Maybe again, follow-up question, why should that be the case, in your opinion? Why do you see it that way?-

DEFG3_M5: -Because I think that we as an economically strong nation within the EU can raise these funds and because I also think that you can then also help poorer countries within the EU to stand more on their own feet. I also think that it is an investment in the future, then perhaps first to provide more and also to invest more in other nations.

(short pause)

[01:20:02]

DEFG3_M4: So I think if we look at it realistically, we Germans also benefit from yes, it's not the misery of others. Maybe partly, but from the economic disadvantages of the others. We pull labor and, and know-how and, yes simply money from other countries and yes we collect that. If the Portuguese, all the youth now, not all the youth, but many well-educated youth leave the country, then money leaves this country and capital and potential and yes, it, yes, you have to try to measure and also if you want to be a social system, you also have to compensate it in some way.-

DEFG3_F3: -You say now that we benefit from it when others are then rather worse off. I actually wanted to say rather, we would profit from it if the EU, if other countries are doing well, because that also strengthens the EU as a whole and one then also has a politically more powerful position, in contrast to other large players in the world, like now between USA and Russia and also China sometime or now already China. That we actually totally profit from it, if other countries in the EU, if we are together economically and thus then also politically stronger.-

M: -Let's go one-by-one in a row.-

DEFG3_F2: -I see that similar to DEFG3_F3, that it is just, in principle, help to self-help. That one helps, on the one hand, the state in distress, so that it can help the state then in the future; but somehow it is also at the same time a self-help for the state that is providing money, because one consequently also profits if it the states in the EU are well-off on the whole, and one can then act stronger as a union simply.-

DEFG3_M6: -I think you have to differentiate a bit between social inequality within the EU. So for example, that Germany is economically much stronger than other countries - and social inequality within the various countries. So relative poverty within countries. And that is, I think, really extremely difficult to combat, because the political representation of interests there is simply not so strong. And I think, so Germany above all, or richer countries above all and the EU in general would benefit from the fact that the countries are about the same level, and there, I think, also most EU, so, that is also what EU social policy is oriented to, as far as I know. But I think, just unfortunately that most governments have a relatively small interest in combatting social inequality within the countries.-

DEFG3_M1: -First of all, I would say that we also have to combat social inequality in our own country, just to start with. And the other thing I would agree with, and perhaps add as a reason, is that we are the world's beloved export champion. We also live off the fact that consumption takes place in other countries. If the social inequality there is so great that a few, one percent, have a lot of money and others have very little, then who is supposed to consume all our exported goods? I don't know what percentage of our exports the EU's domestic market represents, but I can imagine quite a lot. So if, let's say, 33.33 percent [laughs] of our exports somehow disappears or collapses because they can no longer be consumed by other countries because the social inequality there is so high that there is a demand gap, we ourselves as a nation will suffer, so to speak. Then we produce for the garbage can, then nobody buys our products, then our economic system doesn't work anymore.-

M: -If I may follow-up, what exactly follows from that? Because I heard, one should combat the social equality in the own country first, but with the second contribution you mean then nevertheless, it is also that Germany should fight also, for example, unemployment in other EU member states?-

DEFG3_M1: -Well, I think that Germany or every EU country should try to combat social inequality in their own country and support each other in doing so. It's not just a question of Germany, as a country that still has a relatively high level of social inequality, including financial income inequality, not being the prophet here, I don't know, somehow turning every country around for the better, but rather taking a look at oneself in the mirror first and supporting it at the same time. So I do not want to say now, that should remain limited to the national, to their own country, because of each for himself or not, but also not be the savior of the world. I don't think you should presume to be the savior if you don't do better in your own country, that's more the reasoning behind it.

(long pause)

M: Others? So, yes. We are coming to the end and, and yet, so just that I understand correctly, concerning this issue for example unemployment or poverty reduction. One profits oneself from the cooperation. So it is in one's own interest also to help. Is there something different or have I misunderstood, or would someone like to add why one should then help in such cases, other EU member states or specifically Germany?-

DEFG3_M6: -So I am in any case of the opinion that one also, I say, combats relative poverty in countries, but I think before the interests of the richer countries are above all to combat the, I don't know what you call it, I think, real poverty. So that simply their standard of living and somehow wealth or prosperity within the countries generally grow. And that it also is unfortunately, I think, relatively unimportant from the political perspective of richer parties or states if there is then relative poverty in other states. (short pause) As long as just what, as DEFG3_M1 has just said, you can still sell export goods.

(short pause)

M: Okay well then I think it's time for a final closing question. So [laughs] we had, no sorry, sorry DEFG3_M1.-

DEFG3_M1: -I would perhaps add something. I would perhaps add something to that, including the question of whether or not Germany should ensure that there is no social inequality in other countries. I would say that if we are talking about Europe, then Europe should also take care of this, not just Germany, because the question is, is Germany Europe? So is Germany somehow the one or the country that sets the tone in Europe? Or should it actually be democratically elected institutions in Europe, such as the EU Parliament, the Commission, etc., that get something like this off the ground. Then you look at the realpolitik, that this is simply conservatively, economic-liberal occupied, the institutions. A left policy [shows quotation marks], or so I would summarize it, to fight social inequality is now quite generally not enforceable. Just given the power constellation that takes place within the institutions. And then, all of a sudden, you see, as you then argue, that all of a sudden the whole time Germany is the center of attention. Of course, because we live here, but also because we, as an economic nation, set the tone in the European Union.

(short pause)

M: It could also, exactly, so it could also have been the answer, I think that was also the question four questions ago, should the EU combat these things, so that was also a question. Thus, you can also still comment on this or I'll go to the, I'll just ask my, one of my last questions. Maybe something else comes to mind if you want. Because we have also now talked a lot about the EU and some areas of social inequalities, economy, aid situations. Are there other areas that you think are relevant when you talk about relations and mutual support within the EU? (short pause) Are there other areas in this context? Yes.-

DEFG3_M1: -So I would clearly say that the social question, if you can summarize it that way under the social question, is really dominant and important, but at the same time cultural questions are also important. Be it discrimination of minorities, be it gender discrimination between men and women and diverse genders, which is all related to it. There should also be attempts to implement that as a humanitarian program. That Germany, ah Germany I said, that the European Union should also be somehow a humanitarian community of values and some, yes, yes, (short pause) backward ideal concepts are maybe not [laughs], not abolished by force, but maybe just somehow be replaced through enlightenment. So liberalism yes, but not economic liberalism, but norma- normative? Is that what you call it? I don't know, yes.-

[01:30:09]

DEFG3_M6: -Ah I forgot what I wanted to say.-

M: -The question was whether there are other areas in the context of mutual assistance or relations within the EU? Are there other areas that are worthy of attention or necessary?-

DEFG3_M6: -So we have talked about it then about the whole climate aspect, we have at least touched on it; that is of course now already super important and also tends to only become more and more important. And then I would think of the question of migration and about the external borders we have already mentioned briefly previously; that own rights are not granted at all and, yes, one does not uphold at all own principles; and then it actually affects the social issues, which we have already talked about also. So within the EU, the states that are located at the external borders have to struggle the most, economically and also somehow from a cultural aspect, to provide people with opportunities to participate in their own country.

(short pause)

M: Following up, so solidarity is one of those basic principles of the EU as well?-

DEFG3_M6: -Yes, solidarity and EU rights. So fundamental and human rights in general, clearly, similarly.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: I would agree with DEFG3_M1 that this would also be the first reason for me, now apart from what we have discussed in more detail and that a much stronger discourse must take place throughout the EU, then also about the protection of human rights or yes, yes also humanitarian demands, as you have mentioned. To me, this is always neglected in the institutions of the EU, and I think this also shows us a bit of the problem with the responsibilities of the EU Parliament, the Commission, and the European Council. What is discussed in the European Parliament is always very often things that primarily affect the economy. Whether it's any new regulations, whether it's intergovernmental aid of a financial nature. I think that this is something that should be discussed much more clearly at the European level, in order to create a balance, which then also goes in the direction of safeguarding human rights and what is linked to this, to push things in this direction. For me, this happens too little at the EU level.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M4: I think to myself sometimes with, yeah, with cultural differences like that or even, oh DEFG3_M1, you were talking about that earlier, yeah, that that, I don't know; do you have backward states or backward views being contained? I mean, that's the way you put it.-

DEFG3_M1: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M4: -In that direction.-

DEFG3_M1: -Conservative maybe more, but yes.-

DEFG3_M4: -Exactly. So I always wonder a bit about myself, just because I find it backward or something, where does the exaggeration of myself start and where do we have to continue to preserve the individuality of the individual states and cultures; and I often have a hard time with that. Does that belong to the culture now that they behave the way they do? Where there are some male, female roles or something? So I don't say that's good, but I always try to take a step back and not to exaggerate about others and to think that I know what's good for the world or for others. There, yes that's maybe not quite on the question now, but that's kind of been floating around in my head. That we have to be careful that we don't feel like the moral high authority, yes.-

DEFG3_F3: -Yes.-

DEFG3_M4: [laughs]

DEFG3_F3: -But if this is the result, then you can't justify that gender differences have a cultural origin if it then leads to women having fewer rights than men. I think that this then quickly becomes a case of justifying it with culture, and I don't think that's possible. And I find.-

M: -Footnote, that may be legitimate, nevertheless I would like to ask, also in this context. So that would be a point also in this context of mutual aid, relations within the EU, what would also then be important for you, which we have not discussed. That the EU and the member states should also be more involved in this area?-

DEFG3_F3: -That should be a condition to change such things in member states?-

M: -I don't know, I'm asking you. Is that an important issue for you that we haven't discussed in this context?-

DEFG3_F3: -Yes. I think, in my opinion, we are slowly overlooking a little bit the fact that the governments of the individual nation states have so much power. In my opinion, there should be more power at the EU level and less power at the individual nation-states, and then of course culturally for some countries there might be changes. But the ideals are yes, so if the ideals are human rights, then it can actually not be bad for the population. And that is very idealistic, that is clear to me, but I think that would be the goal, where you have to work towards. And less, as we do it now all the time, so the one state then helps the other state within the EU or so, but that one thinks much more so as a whole somehow. I think that would be one of the goals that I would formulate.-

DEFG3_F2: -I would let DEFG3_M1 go first, because I would open another topic.-

M: -I'd rather hear your topic.-

DEFG3_F2: -Okay [laughs].-

M: -We're coming to the conclusion now.-

DEFG3_F2: -Okay. I would rather open a conversation again in the area of education or touch on it very briefly, because I think that even if you just look at Germany alone, there are already very big differences from state to state, just in terms of structure. But also overall, from the social status and also the financial status of individual population groups, there are already very clear differences in access to education and I am not so completely familiar with the EU level. I know that there is the European Social Fund, where corresponding projects are financed, supported. But I don't know how this is actually developed in the individual EU countries, and I think that we should see to it that a certain equal opportunity is promoted in the field or through education, and to enable equal access or the same opportunities for access to education for everyone. Because this has become more present especially now in the Corona crisis through this whole home schooling, that financially weaker families had difficulties in part to enable their children access to home schooling at all. Because, perhaps because in a family of five, there is only one PC in the household and yet all three children have to be in some online meeting at the same time, which was simply not feasible in practice.-

M: -So that would also be for you then in this EU context?-

DEFG3_F2: -Yes.-

M: -Okay. I have you in mind DEFG3_M1. So, my very last question and then we'll go around the room. What would be your closing comments? That may be something not yet addressed. Thinking briefly, what would be your closing comment? It can also be an addition to what we have already discussed or a reference to something that still needs to be addressed in the context or something else that crossed your mind during the discussion but I didn't ask. Think about it briefly and then I would just go around, no debate dynamics. (short pause) So far so good? Well, let's start with DEFG3_M1 this time.-

[01:39:31]

DEFG3_M1: -I'm also going around the room. DEFG3_F2, on the subject of education, I also find an important topic and I would say educational opportunities are due to social inequality. So who grows up a ‘socially weaker’, so weaker in quotation marks I would say, socially weaker conditions, has fewer educational opportunities than someone who, so just for that reason I want to say, that goes hand in hand with combatting that, so I also find an important issue. To DEFG3_F3, more power in the EU. When I look at the current balance of power within the EU and how the institutions relate to each other, how an EU Parliament actually has no power to enforce anything and that is the only democratically elected body, an ECB, an ECJ or even an EU Council and EU Commission, we do not have any real influence on it as citizens, as demos, which actually does not exist de facto in the EU. That's why I see it more as a problem if too much power is shifted to the EU in the current situation and constitution of the European Union. If it would be set up differently, maybe more democratically, and a republican understanding of democracy would work, then maybe yes. I'm just afraid that it won't work at the moment, the way the balance of power is. If it did, the EU would have to be restructured first. If you look at it alone, if now, I don't know if you know Martin Sonneborn from the Die Partei, goes into the EU parliament, and demonstrates how endowed the shit store is and that he doesn't change anything with his policy Yes to Europe, No to Europe, because it doesn't matter how he votes, because the EU parliament doesn't change anything about the conditions anyway. Then I would be more afraid if an EU had more power currently. That perhaps still as a supplement to what was addressed too little I think, the democratic quality of the European Union.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F2: I believe that the European Union as a whole has a great deal of potential, some of which is not yet being exploited or is being exploited very, very little in some areas. I often see a problem in the fact that the perspective is often not changed, as I mentioned earlier. So that everything, that certain problems or overall topics are viewed exclusively from one's own perspective, be it from the EU perspective or from the perspective of Germany, and that a change of perspective may open up other possibilities or simply make topics appear different than they might appear from one's own perspective.

(short pause)

DEFG3_F3: Yes, but in Germany, courts are not directly democratically legitimized, that is also only the parliament. But I can see that the EU, that is, the institutions at the EU level, have major weaknesses. But if we look, for example, at the fact that in Austria, after Kurz was deposed, you can see in retrospect, for example, how blatantly the country had already moved away from democracy in many areas in Austria; and this only became clear in retrospect, to me at least, to other people certainly earlier. Where I then somehow thought that the EU should have intervened earlier, but that was somehow not so much up for debate, or maybe I didn't notice it. Where I then think that at the EU level you have to somehow watch out for the member countries and protect the population from the national governments. So I'm still of the opinion [laughs], even if you [looks towards DEFG3_M1] then also justified that the EU is not perfect now. But I still think that we should cooperate more and not leave the national governments so much to themselves.-

DEFG3_M4: -So I actually still have the question, how far it should go that the EU has power and determines in our, yes our states, and how good is that and in which areas. There I am, I don't know, not yet quite sure myself. At first glance, it certainly seems to make sense in many areas, but where, exactly, where is it then incompatible, for whatever reasons and where is it perhaps also good if the EU does not have one, that is, not too much power and makes too many national decisions. Because what if the EU at some point develops in a crooked direction; and perhaps it is then good if we are organized a bit more autonomously. I don't know.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M5: Yes, we talked a lot in the round about ideas and ideals and I think there is actually quite a large consensus in the group, basically. But yes, interestingly, we have, also, as DEFG3_M1 has now noted, actually talked quite little about EU institutions themselves and what it is perhaps currently failing within the EU and in this system, as it is currently structured. And I also think that yes, that is currently the big weak point of the EU and that European policy, as it currently takes place in the EU Commission, in the Council of Europe, in the Parliament, must become much more visible. And certainly also through a parliament that has significantly more powers and, yes I think that the ideals fail a bit because of the institutions as a whole and that is actually a great pity.

(short pause)

DEFG3_M6: Yes, a lot has already been said. In conclusion I do not have so much more to add. I think the ideals often fail because of the very different opinions and points of view within the different states of the EU. And in general I would just like to see the EU move a little bit away from the economic focus on economic issues, economic progress and cooperation, and somehow manage to bring weaker interests into play a little bit more. But we have actually already talked a lot about that.

(short pause)

((M: Then it only remains for me to say thank you very much again. I think we really could have spent a lot more time talking to each other or you could have talked to each other. I enjoyed it very much and unfortunately or fortunately, as the case may be.))