M: I would like you to write down on the paper in front of you three words or three terms that come to mind when you hear the term "EU". (long pause). I would like you to read, forming a circle, these words or phrases and tell me a few words about why you chose them.

ELFG1_M1: The first word is inequality because I think there are clear lines in terms of concentration of wealth and geopolitical power, in-. Between some blocks of the EU, East - West, North - South. The second one is green development, because indeed the EU as an international bloc, let's say, {is} one of the most ambitious in terms of environmental policies. With its problems obviously and with new capitalist chains, {but this is} another discussion. Thirdly unity, because it is indeed a project of internationalism, solidarity, in a way, and unification.

ELFG1_M2: The first word I wrote is security, I don't think I can substantiate it with something very tangible, it has more to do with the way I remember myself growing up thinking that in the EU we have some economic and general security. The second word is modernisation which I picked for exactly the same reason. The third word is the euro which is our common currency. So, all three words went back to my childhood rather than something more pivotal.

ELFG1_F3: I also wrote unity as the first word, basically that is the goal of the EU in its theory. I wrote pluralism, because I believe that basically the EU is trying to unite different national entities with a pluralistic theory. I wrote cultures but I changed it to migration, because for me it is one of the main problems that currently, along with the security that the EU thinks that wants to provide {but} has created this chaos.

ELFG1_M4: The first concept I noted is free movement, which I think is one of the very essential and important things that the EU offers. Free studies, a concept that mostly goes back to my own childhood, because I studied, lived and worked a bit in London, age-wise my year was probably the last year that my studies were 100% funded by the EU. Thirdly, human rights, which I wrote this thinking that it's-. Something that I don't think we've achieved 100% or that it's 100% there, but anyway I think that in the EU it's protected maybe a little bit more than in many other countries, in many other parts of the world, and that's one of the positives, I think.

ELFG1_F5: The concepts that came to my mind when I heard "EU" were words with a positive connotation. Looking a bit more romantically at the concept, not meaning that it fulfilled what I have in mind but what I would like to see covered within it. The first thing I noted was European Law - legislation, because clearly now a country when joining such a union with the narrow confines of its own laws, {but} there is a single law that protects various, for citizens, for their various rights. The second word that I noted is open borders, which I think was the first thing that was advertised in the context of this project, that there would be free movement, that studies are also favoured, as ELFG1_M4 mentioned, that the economy is supported, trade, all of that. The third is common opportunities, which includes equality in a broader context. I repeat that all of what I have noted is what I would like to be the case, not what I think is linked to the EU, today.

ELFG1_F6: I noted the European regulations, not having anything specific in mind, maybe more what ELFG1_F5 said in relation to legislation, the framework of rules that are somehow broader and not state by state, but a bit more overall. Then I noted the mutual aid, in a utopian world and maybe with the thought of how this project started with what thought, {with} the mutual aid of the members. Thirdly, I first wrote interests and then I added economics in the sense that in general there is a big gap between the states that are in the EU and a big gap, which also conflicts with mutual aid. That's how I thought of it.

M: Before we continue ELFG1_F6 would you like to tell me a little bit more about mutual aid? I mean how did you have it in your mind, how would you like it to be ideally?

ELFG1_F6: Yes! I think in the context that countries that may have a need either financially or materially, or human resource, to have a mutual aid with other countries that may have either the economic capacity or the knowledge or the capabilities to support that. I think that this is not happening, maybe I don't know that it is happening, in my mind it is not happening, but that is how I have it in my mind.

ELFG1_F7: The first word I mentioned was solidarity. It fits a little with what ELFG1_F6 said, mutual aid in essence, having in mind transnational mutual aid. I have in mind, if I can develop it a little further, the wildfires this year and cases like this, similar crises when one state helps the other. {The second word I chose} the unity, because that is the goal of the EU. As a third word I chose the rules, because any unification effort must include some regulations, having human rights in my mind that’s why I wrote it, so all the citizens to be free and to achieve this unification. So we have solidarity, unity and rules.

M: Before we move on, ELFG1_F7 do you think that the solidarity and mutual aid that you and also ELFG1_F6 mentioned, should be accompanied by rules or should it be unconditional within the EU?

ELFG1_F7: If it should be accompanied by rules? [she is wondering]. I think rules are always useful to have a balance in any system, so when there is the plan, the strategy for anything, I think the outcome will be to everyone's benefit. I think rules are always useful as long as human rights are guaranteed, as I said before, and there is balance in the system. For me the word balance is very crucial.

ELFG1_M8: I to be honest at first, I wasn't sure, I had mixed feelings about what I wanted to write, about the three words and luckily I cheated a bit and saw the first one of ELFG1_M4 and got inspired. So, my first word is also free movement, which is both literal and quite ironic. The free movement we have, which I now understand how convenient and useful is for us whether it's for work, study, travel or whatever. Of course it has very big quotation marks around free when it comes to people who don't happen to be from an EU country and how closed the EU is, where it's not in its benefit, refugee issue and whatever that entails. Then I have free trade, which also has a touch of irony, both from how much easier it is to have exchanges of goods and services within the EU, but also how much the EU benefits and how many monopolies this correlation creates within the EU. Last but not least I was been between elite and image, but I think they both fit, mainly because the ideals that the EU promotes, what image it wants to project, obviously it projects a humanitarian facade, it projects an image that respects human rights, it talks about freedoms, it talks about green energy, whatever, but seeing what it can and does actually is zero, that is where it influences the decisions of member states and where it pushes, in the end this is only about economic interests and not so much about freedoms, seeing states having fascist regimes, member states having laws that are extremely oppressive to their citizens, and when that goes to some economic interests, then the EU starts pushing. That seems to me to be quite a bit of an "image" of both the EU and the EU Council and the European institutions that exist.

M: How would you characterize your overall attitude towards the EU?

[Participants ask to repeat the question]

M: How would you characterise your overall attitude towards the EU?

ELFG1_F3: Overall positive, I think it has given a lot of positive things to the countries that are part of the EU and I would consider that we would take a step back if it broke down. I think it has too many disadvantages and areas that it can improve, e.g. what it means to be inclusive in the other countries that are not part of this scheme, but as some people mentioned about inequality. I think it has improved the standard of living for the EU countries a lot.

M: Do you think ELFG1_F3 that improving living standards would be able to bring the EU closer together? To have a positive impact on European integration?

ELFG1_F3: Both yes and no. Depending on how substantial the improvement in living standards is and how equally it is created between the social "layers". That is, essentially I think we have to fight for the next few years. Yes, it has improved living standards but as the decades go on, it creates very large inequalities within member states.

ELFG1_M2: I would also agree with the fact that I think the balance is positive for the EU, obviously taking into account what ELFG1_M8 mentioned, about the inequalities that have arisen. But in my view, before the - shall I say - inequalities of the EU emerged and became pronounced, there was a sort of grace period of the first 30 years - 20 years and that these are issues that would certainly come out as long as there was a tendency for a number of countries to want to unify at various levels. However, I find it very difficult to see this continent not having some sort of union either economic, social or cultural as there are so many heterogeneous forces and a very old history of animosity, so yes, I say it's positive {the EU view} as well. Thank you.

ELFG1_M4: And I'm very positive about the EU, mainly because I'm trying to think how it would be the opposite thing [laughs], if Greece was a country that didn't belong to this system. I think it offers a lot of things, I think that clearly there are no equalities at the moment, the EU is not looking at all countries in the same way, at all problems. But I also think that we are talking about a continent that has centuries of history, and very different histories between each country, so suddenly to bring all these countries into the Union and find a common way of being, speaking, responding and cooperating, I think that it cannot work in 20 to 30 years, I think it needs much more time. We have already seen many things that are positive, too many negative, I do not doubt it. But I think the positives are much, much, much more and I can think very dystopianly of a situation where this system would collapse and suddenly everybody would go back to an early state.

M: In terms of what you said about the present, do you think the EU is positively inclined towards some of its member states?

ELFG1_M4: I would agree with what ELFG1_M2 said. That I think economically let's say it works, or ELFG1_M8, I can't remember who said it, when it comes to an economic issue it is clearly more active than when it comes to the humanitarian part. We have had in the last few years too many people who were refugees and we saw a huge, a very big difference between how different countries dealt with this wave of migrants, which was a humanitarian crisis, and we saw how each country treated the human being as a human being coming into it. So I think that's where the inequalities are, in the economic part I think they run a little bit more. I'm not going to look at whether one country is protected more than the other if it's covered - I've got it a little bit in my mind romantically if you like, that whatever is done, it's done a little bit for the good of the whole EU, even if some countries falls a little bit behind. That's what I like to think, but that's not the case.

[00:20:57]

ELFG1_F5: My overall view is positive and it pretty much sums up what the guys mentioned earlier. In general, the fact that my view is positive is based on the fact that I see the EU as an incomplete project of an attempt to reach something - let's say - ideal, for example what ELFG1_M8 said before about the humanitarian mask. Obviously not everything that should apply has been achieved, but the EU offers a framework for where we should be in order for the rules that would bring equality, solidarity, to apply. And inequalities would have existed anyway. I don't think it's the EU that causes them. In the context of the fact that we are in this system and we are trying to work with countries that are very different from us, they bring the inequalities out. If we lived within a narrow framework and our own closed borders, these inequalities would still exist, they just wouldn't be as apparent compared to other EU countries. Now by trying to say, someone is leading on the economic level, they are trying to get the other countries to follow because they are further behind, they are weaker economically. Others are stronger culturally, others are trying to follow because we are within this Union. That is how I have it in my mind and that is why I have a positive view. Now whether we succeed or not and how far this will be, I don't know.

ELFG1_F6: The way I think about it (short pause) I can't think inside or outside {Europe}, for or against {Europe}, which would be better. I can't imagine either economically, socially, or culturally what it would be like if each EU country were completely autonomous. Despite the growth, despite the economic progress, and all that the previous speakers have said, I think, having seen the whole humanitarian crisis in Greece and in the EU in general in recent years, yes, we admit the inequalities, we admit the difficulties, but there is no willingness as a whole of the states to change this somehow. To change the situation for the better. So for me, just because of this, there is a huge thorn in my side that we promote unity, we promote solidarity, we promote equality, but in the end everyone is on their own and everyone fights alone, at the cost of human lives and people.

M: Would you be willing for the EU member states to delegate more powers to the EU so that it can function as a union and not as individual states?

ELFG1_F6: Yes, I think that's the idea, because we cannot be a union only for an economic issue or when something is to be done for the better, but also in a crisis, in a difficulty, I think that the responsibility must be shared equally. Of course, we say this being in Greece and being the front line of the borders. I do not know if I had had this discussion being in Sweden or Finland what my opinion would have been on this issue, but I think that responsibility should be shared somewhat differently.

ELFG1_M8: More generally about what my attitude towards the EU and my view, I am definitely positive towards some form of union in the European states, and not just with the principles and ideas that the EU had started with. So if I have to say positive or negative, I will say {that} my view is positive. Having said all that before, about how dysfunctional it seems to me in its current form, I think there is indeed a lot to offer such a form of union, whether economically, humanitarianly, or in many {other} areas. And for some questions that were asked before, let's say about the economic part, if I'm not mistaken, {as} an economic union started and then this happened. In this part I think it still focuses the most. There is some action in the humanitarian area, there is some action in the energy, whatever, the environmental, but still a lot of legislation if we look at green energy, if I'm not mistaken. That's where ELFG1_M1 can tell us more, that a lot of its parts are linked to economic interests, in what is considered green energy within the EU. Let's say now there has been a big issue about natural gas, which is considered green energy, with whatever that may includes, let's say. Also, give me a moment because I got stuck on something else I wanted to say. I will come back in a minute.

ELFG1_F7: I think my point of view also sums up everything that the previous speakers have said. When you asked the question I thought about it positively, when I thought about it logically, I said to be positively inclined to all of this, of course. It has indeed raised the standard of living. However, because there was an emotional reaction, there was also all this ambivalence, if you like, that came out, which has to do with all the things that were said about duplicity. With the masks that were mentioned, with the economic interests, so while I also thought about EU in a very utopian way in the first words, when I thought about it realistically and what's going on in the news, I got it together, I tightened up a bit. But yeah, because I can't imagine Greece or any other country either, but let's take Greece for example because this is where we live. Because I can't imagine it isolated and completely autonomous, I don't think it's realistic, I'm positively inclined to all of this.

ELFG1_M8: I remembered what I wanted to say. On what many people have said before that whether we think we would be better or worse off without such a union, I don't think it's a completely realistic question because we don't know exactly what it would be. We have been living in such a situation for the last 20 years, I have practically only lived in such a situation for as long as I can remember, so I think progress would have come anyway in some areas, based on the advance in technology and so on. I certainly think that the EU has helped, especially Greece in some areas, but then talking about a union where knowing what happened in terms of lending {money} and so on, that you are in a union with some people that you consider your creditors and the narrative that existed in, let's say, Germany, that the Greeks are spending our money, you don't see that there is a treatment as a union. That's what somebody talked about, I don't remember, maybe was ELFG1_F6? Who said that there should be a more pronounced attitude that we are a union and we are legally and institutionally functioning as a union, rather than fragmented. Obviously there are economic correlations, obviously there are powerful states like France and Germany that give a direction to economic choices. So for me there should also be a more central direction for where the Union is going, now that will be related to whether we give more powers to the EU, I don't know for sure. There are certainly a lot of positive things happening, GDPR {General Data Protection Regulation} is a big step for the union, it's one of the examples that actually works within the EU. It helps in many contexts even the common people, not just economic interests. So I don't want to say that EUs action is only negative. It is just that there are so many dysfunctions in its structure in the end, which raises the question, can we hope to improve this or do we want something different on the same basis?

[00:30:20]

ELFG1_M4: Can I ask you a question ELFG1_M8? Do you think that this system can fix itself, from its political structure? So given how colourful the EU is and how differently one country operates from the other, in terms of culture, habits and so on, do you think it's just a political issue? Or is it also cultural?

ELFG1_M8: Certainly cultural differences, it's not something easy to overlook. I don't know if it's political or cultural, it's purely in the system that generally exists worldwide. I mean in the capitalistic system, the way it works, I don't find it easy that it can work as a union of states, when there are economic interests which ultimately go to individuality. I don't know much on the subject, e.g. there is some inspiration from some Latin American countries, which ultimately some decades ago worked together for some interests which, there and if there were cultural differences and rivalries and whatever, but which managed and found a way and worked, for the benefit of all states. But again, I haven't read enough about that and I don't know much for sure. So it's not just a political issue but I think it's a social issue basically, but one that doesn't have so many differences within Europe. I mean, I think we are much closer to the rest of the European people than other countries that have managed to coexist in some things. So yes, yes but, I think that it is also a political basis, but I think that we have certainly done a good job of considering that we are all Europeans. In other words, I think that everyone now has a sense of "European", so steps have been taken towards accepting that we are one in this part. Regardless of the fact that anti-European elements are slowly coming out, Le Pen, whatever, in many countries. So I think that with the way we were 20 years ago, there is a much stronger European feeling among the people of Europe, so that's where I think steps have been taken. So that could work somehow.

ELFG1_M1: And I am also expressed by the word ambivalence. I mean, I'm thinking of some global trends, even recently. Namely that the EU blocking the World Trade Organization from removing the vaccine patent. Whereas some other people who weren't expecting it, I think the US, were in favor of the lifting, so I don't know how that happened. On the other hand, in the global fora, the environmental ones, the EU is always one of the most ambitious players, like let's say at the Glasgow conference, it always aims the highest. Again, on the other hand, it also reproduces colonial relations with multinationals, such as Shell, which have their headquarters within the European core, but operate mainly outside it. In other words, let us say Spain has banned drilling in its national region and by its national company Repsol, but Repsol is destroying ecosystems throughout Latin America. Also, since we're talking about inequality within the EU, it's very interesting how, something that is also reproduced within colonial relations and within the EU, how some states, like Germany, England, industrialised from the fifties to the seventies and then the European project was created. They basically told non-industrialised countries, like Greece and Portugal, to basically open their borders, 'Now you're going to open, you're going to play in the same arena as us, on the same terms'. Obviously they had the industries ready, the cheap labour that they imported from Eastern and Southern Europe. So, as a project it was created on the basis of colonial relations both inside and outside the EU. So a lot of ambivalence I would say in the end.

ELFG1_M2: I would like to agree with ELFG1_M1 on what he said. In fact I would like to emphasise it for countries for which I have a sense, they have ascended more recently, that there is a stronger sense of both social and economic and historical injustice on their area in terms of what Europe is and what they expect from it. Like Poland and Hungary, which have put out anti-European voices much more strongly than I remember ever being here in Greece, for example. And I bring up Greece as an example of a non-industrialised country compared to the more industrialised countries. Thank you.

M: Okay, while we're on the subject of Greece, if a person stated that Greece's membership of the EU was a profitable process, what do you think are the gains that Greece has made from the EU.

ELFG1_M1: Certainly, in terms of environmental legislation, I think all of us here can agree. With the NATURA network, the protected areas, all the directions on waste management, the protection of birds, even the treatment of animals in livestock farms. As far as the environment, ecology, animals and biodiversity are concerned, I think {these policies} have come from the top down in Greece, and I think that is a good thing.

ELFG1_M8: I think in infrastructure projects we benefited, at least in the beginning, but we pay for it later, I'm sure of that. But if you look at the bigger infrastructure projects that were done in the early 2000s most of them were co-financed or fully financed by the EU. So certainly a lot of road and sports infrastructure comes from European funding.

M: Because we hear very often that some big projects are awarded to the Greek political system or to specific political figures, such as the Karamanlis Holes in Sounion, do you think that in Greece European aid is credited {to the EU}, at the level of society? Meaning, do politicians make it clear that this is a co-financed project? That for example at the moment the management of the Covid-19 pandemic is 75% co-financed through NSRF?

ELFG1_M8: I don't think so, because it's in their political interest. If there is a political interest, if for some reason there is some anti-EU movement that they feel threatened by then maybe they point it out more so to speak, but all you see in the construction sites is on a big sign, at some point the EU flag and it just says "co-funded by this". But on many projects where there is co-funding you see names and signs that say this was done "under transport minister X" so to speak. Which no matter if 70, 80, 100% has been funded by the EU. Obviously, everyone is trying to get political gain from whatever is done, regardless of where the money comes from.

ELFG1_M4: I think that we have benefited as a country, I don't know whether {this is true}, rather the Greeks as citizens have benefited in terms of the fact that the state sometimes, or at least on some issues, has to answer to an authority bigger than itself. So there are European courts, there are European laws, which are supposed to be there to protect citizens, so if anything, the Greek state always has to answer to them for whatever form of inequality there is. Now whether this thing actually works or not, I think it has a long way to go, but again, I think the fact, that if anything, that thing exists and gives you a sense of protection, much greater as an ordinary citizen. Citizens have benefited, because they have in their hands a very strong passport. The Greek passport is considered one of the ten best passports in the world, it is equal to the Australian passport, it allows you to travel very, very comfortably to countries where other countries have very great difficulty, it takes a lot of paperwork and so on.

[00:40:30]

ELFG1_F6: Maybe kind of based on what ELFG1_M4 said the issue of free movement of citizens both for work, for education or whatever is definitely a benefit to the country.

ELFG1_F5: I think a very big benefit was in enterpreunership. Kind of like our horizons were opened up and we turned to new things. Now if you say I'm going to open a new business to make a product in Greece, straight away you think "dream big" as we say. You don't think that this business will succeed if you address exclusively to the country. You start right away and make a more structured business plan, in order to export this to Europe. Somehow I think that our membership {of the EU} has broadened our horizons, otherwise we would have been much more closed in terms of work. We would have said 'okay, we are an agricultural country, what can we to produce? What can we offer?" It changed the landscape a little bit, not necessarily only in a positive way, {EU} affected negatively labour in many different ways, but overall I see it as positive.

ELFG1_M8: On what ELFG1_M4 said, whether I think the Greeks benefited or Greece benefited, depending on what we think it means "Greece benefits". I mean, individually I think it's a insane benefit that we can move, go to study, go to work abroad. I mean, that alone opens your horizons, seeing new things, offers a tremendous benefit to both the country and the individuals. But this ease of working abroad, as a country in theory, and the brain-drain that you have and the leakage that you have in human resources, doesn't exactly benefit the country. So that freedom, it gives benefits to the Greeks but not so much to Greece, if you see it from that point of view.

M: So both ELFG1_F5 and ELFG1_M8 at the end referred to a negative connotation of Greece's membership of the EU. If one person argued that it was not beneficial for Greece to join the EU, what do you think those disadvantages would be?

ELFG1_M8: I think the memoranda. Everything that the memoranda and the financial obligations to the EU and partners have brought.

ELFG1_F5: I will say the same as before but with the negative connotation. Okay, we have changed a lot in the way we think at the level of work but we were a predominantly agricultural and livestock country and we had to modernise and get on the same level as industrialised countries, so that flattened us economically.

ELFG1_M1: Okay, maybe lighter than what the previous people have said.Sometimes we have to be in line with the EU's foreign policy stance towards countries that are dictatorial, like Israel or Saudi Arabia, and support them either with troops, or financially, or with energy projects, etc.

M: Let's go to a hypothetical scenario. Let's imagine that a huge natural disaster occurs in the EU, which you can define as you like. What do you think should be the reaction of the EU as a whole, as a union?

ELFG1_F6: Its reaction should be the one on the basis of which it was created, what we said at the beginning, mutual aid. Obviously, if a country is affected by a flood, an earthquake, a fire and cannot cope with the capacity and the facilities that the country has, the EU should help. Clearly.

ELFG1_F5: Surely in the beggining there should be humanitarian aid from the whole Union to that country, with completely altruistic motives. Meaning, not thinking that maybe we have a lot of economic benefits from this country. At a second level, there should be corresponding aid to ensure that this country is properly structured to cope with a similar situation in the future.

ELFG1_M4: I would very much agree with ELFG1_F5 and for me that would probably be the most essential thing. Not what happens in the case of a natural disaster, but a level of awareness that I think should be much more pronounced within the EU. Meaning, there are member - states that have some more developed elements in their structure in terms of whatever, e.g. the way they operate in firefighting. To have that know-how to be able to pass a little bit more freely between countries. So that all of them {the countries} can pass if only so that there is no excuse of "We didn't know". So that this knowledge can be passed on a little bit more openly and more freely in that we can all have certain standards, regardless of how the internal politics of each country works, so that all of this can be implemented a little bit more easily. That, for me, is the most important thing.

M: But don't you think that the management of natural disasters is a matter of national law? I mean, by what jurisdiction will the EU come and tell you how to manage the wildfires.

ELFG1_M4: In the same sense why should e.g. Germany come and give you money when something has happened. It's very much the same this give and take, let's say. {You don't want} EU to tell you how to fix something, but you want her to come and bail you out when something has happened. That's not right. It's what they say give a man a fish to fill him up, teach a man to fish so he'll never go hungry again.

ELFG1_F3: I think there's a very big gap in EU funding and the standards that the EU sets for countries, which they have to do abit by, so to speak. I think it should be more pronounced that the EU, it sets some standards of "this is it", "how do we deal with a disaster", "what is our right" etc., which a country should meet and then from there it should do more but not be able to do less. Which I think has already created this debate.

[00:49:55]

ELFG1_F7: I very much agree with ELFG1_M4 and I don't think it's about imposing an EU strategy on Greece for example, when it's all on fire. It has to do with a more open communication and exchange of knowledge and information so that we are also more prepared. And recent examples have shown that we are unprepared for the simplest things. So yes, since we as Greece cannot cope with natural disasters, we need transnational mutual assistance.

ELFG1_M4: I mean, even in what ELFG1_M8 mentioned before, about the benefits that we have as a country, which in the beginning were mainly financial, for infrastructure, I think that if this money, the funds would come in ways, with regulations on how they are used, I think that it would be much, much, much, much more effective.

ELFG1_F6: I was thinking more along the lines of, "yeah, the EU is not going to come and impose on you that you're going to handle the wildfire this way, this way and this way." But on the other hand, although as a state you're not responsible, you don't have a strategy, how many fire engines am I going to have, how many firefighters am I going to have, what firefighting projects am I going to do? What flood control works will I do? Then whatever knowledge the EU passes on to you, if as a state you don't have the decency to put that into practice, it's as if the EU has passed nothing on to you. Because I do not believe that as a state we do not know how to do fire protection works. It seems difficult to me that we do not know how, given that we are a state that is too often affected by both floods and fires. So I am not exactly sure how much it is our responsibility first and then, in addition, to take on and give our expertise to EU Member States accordingly.

ELFG1_F5: I have it in my mind with this example of how it would be more effective to give that guidance, that: "Yes it's intervantional to be told you have to hire so many firefighters that you, because of the operation of the state, have them in this particular force, train them and pay them in this particular way." Yes it's intervantional to tell you "you're going to hire this many people" or "you're going to buy these fire trucks, from company X", that would be intrusive. But to have, for example, a briefing, an instruction on how your fire zones are structured, what are the steps you should take in an emergency situation, with X, disaster. These are things that can be given, so that there can be a unified framework, so that they can work if you want to operate on equal footing with the other members and that way that guidance can work positively.

ELFG1_F3: I don't know what exactly is considered intervantional. So it's intervantional if the EU gives you high standards, the EU on how to be prepared for a natural disaster, but then when it comes to the financial area and they force you to reduce things there it's okay? But isn't it okay to help you have better standards?

M: What I mean most is whether you would be in favour of delegating, for example, the civil protection, of all European citizens to a central European body or whether that should remain in each member state. Because we are now hearing two different narratives. In the first one that "Obviously the EU should intervene" and we also hear the narrative "If the EU intervenes, it can impose conditions unfavourable to my country".

ELFG1_M4: Of this we already have an example, the memoranda. The memorandum was what? We screwed up on the economics and the lenders come in and say you're going to do this, this and this, and you can't deviate from what we tell you. We all considered this to be too intervantional and too severe for the individual development of each entrepreneur and for the state. If he had come to you from the outset and said, "You know what, I am an economist, let me teach you how to do your finances, since obviously it has not worked so far, and I will teach you one, two, three things which you, for your part, will then - . How can I put it. Are you going to make a loan to a business? Are you going to give a grant to a freelancer?" That money will come with some direction as to how it should be distributed, what would be good to do, and from there you leave them at their liberty. But give them a direction. You can't give a farmer, who up to now has been with the plough, money and say "come on, modernise". He will take the money and do whatever comes into his head if he doesn't have to show evidence anywhere. So I think that you take this thing and you take it up a little bit, increase it, make it a little bit bigger as a scale you'll see, we've already experienced what it's like.

M: And having discussed what should be the EU's reaction, what do you think should be the reaction of other European countries? Let's say that in European member state A a natural disaster happens, how should the other member states react?

ELFG1_M8: If the EU response is sufficient, I don't know if the other Member States need to take action. In theory it could be through the EU working properly and with the right help, financial, material etc. that the problems of the state in trouble could be solved. Now for example we see that the wildfires were assisted by Polish people? Where had they come from, I don't remember? They had come from other countries and were helping. Which I don't know if it was done through the EU, but we see that they may need to take action, but we see that if the EU was functioning normally in this, that the Member States would not need to take some other measure.

ELFG1_M2: I think a key question here, which is also related to the previous question, is that there is a structural issue in the EU in my opinion, which is traced back to a very simple dichotomy of whether it is a union of states or it is one state, and whether it has an internal direction as a union to instil this idea of one state, federal state to its respective citizens. It is one thing for a person who lives in Alexandroupoli and there is an earthquake in Smyrna to say that state money is going to Turkey, and from there it is another thing for some locals who have relations with Pomaks, in any case a cultural element of enmity or friendship, to say that the money is going there or that it is going to Finland or Slovenia. So back to the question, this and the previous question depend on whether there is a political and social perception of Europe as one state or as many states.

M: Okay, so either talking specifically about Greece as a member state, or talking about other member states, do you think it matters which European member state gets hit by the natural disaster?

ELFG1_M2: For me personally not at all, but I'm also a bit utopian. I would like there to be a civil protection corps of too many Europeans, with too many members. I would go to blizzards in Finland, lets say. But then we go off the reality. I think no, they should all help everywhere and all the time.

ELFG1_M8: On this separation of union of states or single state, practically there would not be many of the problems we see today, if the concept of the EU was just that, as a state. That I might not object as a Chios to aid going to Euboea, which is burning, I would accept it much more easily than I would accept it going to Spain, which is burning. This is precisely the perception that I have as a Greek and not as a European. So if we want to talk about a united Europe, many things should work as a state. And we see in many, many states, for example in Spain where there are all these regions how much difficulty there is in moving aid from place to place, for example between Catalonia and Galicia, there can be a problem. In the United States there is still a very big problem in moving between different states, funds and aid. So this separation, let's say into states or regions or states respectively, you see that it creates very big malfunctions and one of the biggest malfunctions in the EU and I think it certainly makes a big difference to which state the aid goes to, within Europe it is a bit easier than it would be to any other. So the perception, if we think of the EU as an economic union, is at the core of how this thing works.

[01:01:23]

ELFG1_F5: But in the context of what you just mentioned ELFG1_M8, respectively, regardless of whether the EU's assistance is sufficient or not, the Member States should be prepared at any time to offer their assistance to strengthen this culture of mutual aid. Meaning, we should not expect that some central power will help the other partners and {think} "if we have to enter the arena, that's fine". There has to be this tendency anyway if we want to strengthen this culture of mutual aid.

ELFG1_M8: Yes, yes I agree and what I said before that other states may not need to take action, they practically do something through the EU, it's not that they just wait if the other {member state} needs help. That is, they are already giving the help by being part of the EU, creating a strong EU, with the right resources to do some things. So obviously everyone is taking part in what is being done, but they don't have to do it individually. Polish people don't need to send us some manpower to help us with the wildfires, {if} the EU has already done it centrally. Obviously, for something like this to work, everyone has to act altruistically. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me why I would have a problem helping the person who lives ten kilometres from me than the person who lives five hundred kilometres from me. But that doesn't apply, logically because of political, cultural, nationalistic whatever, differences, etc. But if we want to have a united Europe, and then a united world, they obviously we have to act altruistically in anything that has to do with either financial or material aid or whatever.

M: I was given a very nice pass before by ELFG1_M2 who mentioned a pan-European Civil Protection Corps. In case there is a need for a crisis management team in a particular member state, do you think Greece should send a team?

ELFG1_M2: Yes, for the reasons I mentioned before because I think it will bring more unification.

ELFG1_M4: I also agree with ELFG1_M2 mainly for the benefit of learning, not just the benefit of supply. Suddenly being able to be aware of what I have to offer, what I am called upon as a person, as a group and as a state to offer to another state, which may be on the other side of the EU, which I may have no connection with, is a culture that needs to be developed. It only develops through giving, I think.

M: But couldn't this culture of giving be strengthened through a culture of helping each other? I mean, as you said "I can send aid to a state that I have nothing to do with", for you Finland is a state that you have nothing to do with in the end or do you belong to the same union? Do you think if there was a stronger culture of mutual aid, there would be a stronger culture of solidarity.

ELFG1_M4: It is obvious that with Finland we have no relation, either geographical or cultural [laughs]. No relation at all. But somehow this thing has to be developed, especially when we all live together in the same house. Yes, clearly by helping each other by giving, yes.

ELFG1_M1: I think that since under the European Green Deal the EU is calling for each Member State to build a climate change adaptation strategy, accordingly to put {as a condition} a common fund and a common adaptation strategy for the EU, so that we are not just called upon to react and do a preventive strategy, let's say, raising some money, based on the GDP of each country, the degree of vulnerability to the climate crisis, now what indicators will be created I do not know exactly, so that there is a ready fund, some ready resources and a ready mechanism, the one you mentioned many times before me, that is a common protection mechanism, but you also finance within a common fund. The skeleton of such strategies exists within a green agreement. We are not going to reinvent the wheel.

M: Do you believe that you have a personal responsibility to help in case of a natural disaster? As you can, either with technical knowledge or financially? In a disaster in a member state.

[Participants ask to repeat]

M: Do you believe that you have a personal responsibility to help in a natural disaster occurring in another EU Member State, either financially or with technical expertise or in any other way.

ELFG1_M2: If we go on a completely personal level, I don't think it makes any difference to me if it is in the EU or outside. I mean if I have to send help somewhere I will send it or I will not send it. Maybe with a personal inclination towards Turkey more, because it has this historical animosity and I would feel something. But otherwise in relation to Europe I don't think it makes any difference to me. Thank you.

M: You mean you would send easier to Turkey?

ELFG1_M2: Yes.

ELFG1_M1: I feel that it's not a question of individual responsibility to overlap and somehow justify the fact that there is no particular state and transnational mechanism ready to deal with these things. Besides, sometimes when each of us goes to help not knowing what, where, how, which mechanisms {are needed} even the simple example of donating to an NGO can reproduce fully abusive behaviours and strategies in the country that receives the aid {and} ultimately do even more harm. Through taxation, through some standard mechanisms to create a common strategy rather than a random "donate here" button to the Red Cross. Although full personally I lean towards an anarchist view, so yes we should definitely all be activated, in the context of this question, this is my answer.

ELFG1_F5: I also think that in order to create this culture of mutual aid and solidarity everyone has to be alerted to help in any way they can. You put it a bit like... (short pause) You said personal responsibility and individual responsibility and because we've heard it so much in the last few months it rings a bit of a bell and we get a bit of negativity.

ELFG1_M8: I would agree with the previous speakers, especially on how dangerous it is to put something that is ultimately state responsibility, social responsibility or whatever, at the level of individual responsibility, but certainly individual responsibility I wouldn't say it is. But yes, to what ELFG1_M1 said, on the basis of self-organization, I do think that we should indeed be able to individually offer, and I have felt the need in some things to offer, it can be either as manpower if I am somewhere close to go and help as an individual, or financially if I can afford it, or whatever. So, I think that it could be something that could help, that could have an effect, we see it here {in Greece}, where there is a shortage from the state it is covered by collectives or individuals, without considering it to be the responsibility of these individuals.

ELFG1_F6: And I think that because of this harm that can happen a lot of times if you don't know where you're going, what you're going to do, why you're doing it and so on, maybe everyone's responsibility is to raise awareness or sensitization on this part, which we can all do and we can arise in the community and in the society. So if I were to put a responsibility piece, I would put that alone.

ELFG1_M8: And just to add that maybe the pressure on the state to act as we think it has a responsibility in the context of awareness is also, it's just a different area.

[01:10:14]

ELFG1_F3: Yeah I think that's the best one. Being an active citizen pushing the state to take its own state and collective responsibility because I think the narrative has been reversed on the part that individuals on their own have more responsibility for things that the state has to take on, so I think that's a very sensitive area to feel that it's a personal responsibility, for things that are state's responsibility.

ELFG1_M4: I want to emphasize that the feeling of personal responsibility concerning natural issues, whether either it's natural disasters or whatever, and the attitude of solidarity, I think that should be something that you can't teach solidarity or morality to anybody, it's very strange to say this thing but I mean if there was a way of raising awareness of this as well, on a more European level, since we're talking about this thing, I think that individual awareness on a European level would maybe make us feel a little bit more European citizens than Greek citizens. Because at the moment most of us are thinking at a national level.

ELFG1_F7: I totally agree on the awareness and information part, not only about what is going on, but also about how we can provide effective help, what was said by ELFG1_M1. To know where and how we can help, each in our own role, as citizens. So both what is happening and how.

M: Let's move on to a next hypothetical scenario. Let's assume that a new financial crisis happens as happened with the Euro crisis and some EU member states are hit harder than some other member states. How do you think Greece should react?

ELFG1_F5: I think that certainly economically, if a country was going into a big crisis right now, it might be worse than Greece, but I certainly don't think we've got our feet firmly on the ground yet to be able to contribute economically. We would perhaps have to put the right pressure on the EU mechanism that would take over to help the particular country, with the experience we have had over the last decade. In other words, if the same scenario was to be followed, we would certainly have to contribute there as a case study, as we have already experienced all this. From there, on a practical level, I don't know whether we could help, but I would like to mention again that there should be no negative narratives, as there was towards Greece, "Wow, now we are going to help these poor people, I don't know what, who will destroy {financially}", there should be a sense of solidarity.

ELFG1_M1: Because again it kind of comes down to how we react to a crisis and not what mechanisms we put in motion to prevent it, I would say that in many things there are some blocks that are created in the EU, that is, some countries take a position, sign a statement and send it to the commission, on fossil gas as you were saying before, on other issues like LGBT rights. I think Greece should support macro-economically some positions and some strategies to prevent these recurrent crises of neoliberalism. Namely, the crackdown on tax havens, very low taxation on the rich. A number of things that I won't say, many people have said, like Diem 25, many positions and manifestos have come out. So from the outset Greece should be one of the countries pushing such positions. I don't know if what I am saying is too theoretical but we should react preventively and not only reactively to such things.

ELFG1_M4: I mean, I think that no one has in mind that there is a way to react, to help as Greece.

ELFG1_F6: Maybe with what not to do, not with "dos" but with "do nots", preventively so to speak. That is as ELFG1_F5 said before. Maybe so. It is an experience that could be useful for another state.

ELFG1_M2: First of all, I agree with ELFG1_M1 on what he said, initially. But from there, I disagree with most of the responses I've heard. It doesn't seem to me in any way that whatever Greece has gone through is in a position to say "I wouldn't give my money as a taxpayer", when there have been taxpayers from countries with 200 euro salaries, Slovenia, Slovakia, etc., one of which participated financially in the memorandum, I don't remember which. But what could be done is that on the spectrum of debt and human rights, which Greece and Germany came to a complete break and complete opposition, it would not have to be repeated for any other country. Beyond that, as ELFG1_M2 and as a taxpayer in Greece, it would seem outrageous to me to come out and say don't give money from my country to someone else. Thank you.

ELFG1_F5: I think our statement has been put a little bit differently by ELFG1_M2 and it took a bit of a negative tone, we didn't mention that as EU citizens if we were asked to help we would say we can't help, there should be this feeling of solidarity, I just don't know whether it is feasible to give a substantial help from Greece, since it has not got back on its feet, not compared to Slovenia, compared to the general economic level of the rest of Europe.

ELFG1_M2: Just if we are talking about equalizing inequalities, it seems to me that (short pause) There were narratives in relation to the financial crisis of Greece, in countries like Bulgaria, with very symbolic amounts of money gave something and said that it is not possible even in the memorandum reality of Greece, the standard of living of Greece is higher than that of Bulgaria. So if we are talking about some kind of integration and some kind of balancing of things, I think that even at this level, we should as a society say that something from us, even symbolically, should go there. And not only given what we've been through. Of course I don't take into account that there are countries like Germany and France that have the most money, but as a mentality, I am very much pushed by what we found across the street when we had to take money. That's what I mean. Thank you.

[01:21:33]

Μ: And if we assume that Greece is the country that is again affected by a financial crisis, what should be the EU's reaction?

ELFG1_M4: I don't know why, I think it's a bit complicated question. I think you have to take a little bit into account and why it is being hit again, what are the reasons we are in this position again? Is it mismanagement of the finances again? Is it natural disasters? Is it the fact that we never managed to get back on our feet? I think it's a very, very simple question to take a stand, you have to take these parameters into account.

M: You could assume that a union would offer its members unconditional help, so to speak, that's why I did it.

ELFG1_M2: In that light, yes. And other money with more consideration for human rights than before.

ELFG1_M1: And not only for human rights but also for environmental sustainability, digitize and all these lines that the EU is now setting and combining the recovery fund from Covid with the principles of the Green Deal. What you're saying is not so theoretical, because we're seeing it happening right now. Not only in Greece in all EU countries, that all countries are in recession and there is a support.

M: In the case that Greece is the country that is hit hardest by the hypothetical crisis, what do you think the reaction of the other member states should be.

ELFG1_M4: I don't know what their attitude should be, because in general we are talking about what should be and the hypothetical, we always talk about an ideal situation where there is altruism, mutual help, open minds, giving and so on. So if we were to say what it should be, it should be everybody giving and everybody helping and so on. But I think that somehow, until the idea of I am European, and not I am French, I am German, I am Greek and I have to help each other, is more developed, I think we will always find issues. Because domestic politics will always either distort what is going on or turn it around. When I say domestic politics I mean the media, journalism and so on. So it will project a very specific image to its citizens of what is going on elsewhere, perhaps probably for personal gain. So there are too many factors there as well that you have to take into account in what the other European citizen should do.

ELFG1_M8: I think I'm going to stand on what we said about natural disasters. That practically the member states should be willing to contribute through the union and again, I don't know as a state whether each of them should contribute with specific agreements and so on, because that would break the meaning of the existence of the EU a little bit. That is, if the channels that the EU has given us are bypassed, there is no longer any point in its existence.

M: If Greece was the country most affected by the financial crisis and the other European countries or the EU as a whole were giving it financial aid, would you be for or against having rules to accompany the financial aid?

ELFG1_M4: I personally would be in favour. I wasn't even against the memorandum, in a sense. I thought it was a set of guidelines. Now how it came about and how it had to be done and how it had to be adjusted is another discussion, but I was very much in favour of the rules. Not with the rule as a rule that you have to follow it, although in a case of a second failure I think that clearly things should be more strict, but I see rules as a form of learning but again as something that, most likely, you can get it wrong.

ELFG1_F5: I also think that rules in itself is not something that works negatively towards an issue that has to do with financial management. It's just that there needs to be very specific standards for the rules. Who sets the rules? What are the issues that have been taken into consideration to create some rules that do not hurt the person who has to abide by them? What is the context in which the rules should be observed, that is to say that each country to which you are addressing, now Greece in particular, must take into consideration its specific characteristics. The rules in themselves do not create problems, as long as what I have mentioned is respected.

ELFG1_F6: I don't know if without any framework a financial assistance could be implemented, not only to Greece, but to any Member State. I would agree with both what ELFG1_M4 said and what ELFG1_F5 said that it has to do with how the rules are set, what the rules are. So not just the rules but also the framework around them. But I think that without rules the plan could not be implemented.

ELFG1_M8: I won't say I hate rules, but I will say that rules are there to fill in the gaps that we, as a society, have created. Having said that of course, I acknowledge that some framework of rules could be needed in terms of having seen how some things are managed here {in Greece}. In this discussion that we are having, that presupposes that the rules are right, that the rules have some basis in the purpose of being for the benefit of the ordinary people and not for the benefit of some interests. With the memorandum that was mentioned before, I think it did not have that direction. Meaning, they have come out and have even said, even officials and the EU and the European fund and whatever, that this plan is not working, that this plan is not sustainable, this plan is working just in places for some interests. So this framework should not exist, this framework should not exist anywhere. Whether it can work is whether we have more faith in the policy makers in Greece or in Europe , which at this stage in some parts there may be more transparency in Europe, so it may work a little bit better with the rules.

[01:30:01]

ELFG1_F7: I completely agree with both ELFG1_M8 and ELFG1_F5 and ELFG1_F6. The rules should make sense and make sense in a humanitarian way. That's what I want to emphasize, and indeed not to be in favor of some who benefit from all this, the strong, but not to trample on the weak. That would make sense and that is the framework that I ideally and utopianly, because I side with the romantics, think would be effective.

ELFG1_M2: I totally agree with ELFG1_F7 that at the moment, statistically at least, thinking about which country might be affected in the EU, it's a country that probably won't be at the forefront of production, it's a country that I imagine won't have as much money as the big economic powers. Beyond that, anything that has to do with rules, which I agree should be set because we are talking about a very complex economic process, cannot touch human rights, which is not the case here. There is enough money in the EU so that in any smaller-scale country the same horizontal cuts are not made, so that layers and countries and people and communities are not affected in this way, so that some richer countries can secure their money.

[01:32:00 - 01:37:00 short break]

M: Moving on to one last hypothetical scenario, given that there are social inequalities, as you mentioned earlier, both within and between member states, should the EU adopt a common program to reduce these inequalities?

[Participants asked, off the record, for an example]

M: To give an example, let's say this could be what ELFG1_F3 said at the beginning, the growing income gap, either between states, or within states themselves.

ELFG1_M2: Yes I think there should be, good luck to those who have money, to accept it. I think it will contribute to unification, to making that union more compact.

ELFG1_F3: I think it should exist, of course, but the question is why it doesn't exist already. I mean, I think the EU is an economic model and actually inequalities help it economically. They have created these classes so that German companies, for example, can use cheap labour from Greece. So I don't know whether it is feasible to have it, but of course I would like it.

M: If we take unemployment as a social inequality for example, would you be in favour of having a jointly funded European programme to fight unemployment on a horizontal basis?

ELFG1_M2: It depends on what each unemployed person would have to do to find a job. I mean if there is this horizontal measure and it means that we found you a fantastic job in Tampere, Finland and you have to leave Gyzi where you live, I don't know how someone will go about that decision, so the horizontal has to be delimited somehow.

M: When I say horizontal I mean without differentiation between member states. That is to say that the union itself should come and tell you: "I want Finland to have up to 3% unemployment and so Greece, with completely different economic and production models."

[01:40:00]

ELFG1_M2: Then I guess I would agree if some, what I would say very arbitrary logical frameworks were met, which is that you don't have to leave your home or your country, at least. Beyond that, coming from a country where youth unemployment is so high it would be good to have such a common policy.

ELFG1_F5: And I think that in an ideal world it would be good to have this common policy, but the thing is that it is so multifactorial, what should be taken into account, that I don't think it would work. To say in our country, for example, that it should not exceed certain levels of unemployment, without giving some more specific guidance on how you could do that, for our country I could think something like that would mean advertising positions for three months to temporarily reduce the unemployment rate and that this would go on indefinitely and some fictitious numbers would come out, without solving unemployment on the substance. In theory I think that yes, it should happen.

ELFG1_M8: I think that's what I said in the previous piece about eliminating inequality because unemployment is also a form of inequality, as I understand it. It seems a bit obvious to me that we would be in favour of eliminating such inequalities related to unemployment and so on, so if the EU should do something about it, it seems a bit obvious to me that the answer is yes, and the reason why is because we want a society without inequalities. Now, how that can be done, if it can be done simply by a horizontal unemployment fund for example, if it can ensure independently of the unemployment fund of each country a minimum living wage, which is the only realistic thing I can see, I can't see that it {the fund} suggesting you a job in Spain, it could work I don't think that would be accepted by many member states that have low unemployment. So yes I wish it could exist, realistically I don't think it will.

ELFG1_M1: I think there are already some mechanisms, the Fair Transition Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund where from the Cohesion Fund Luxembourg gets nothing and Bulgaria and Portugal get billions. So there is sort of this thing, I agree with what ELFG1_F3 said before that it's a bit of a giveaway if Romania gets money from the Cohesion Fund but then has a sweatshop economy to make cheap H&M clothes for Sweden and so eventually all of its workforce, its young people, its productivity shifts to a late state capitalism model, so to speak, without (short pause). It sends its resources and manpower to meet some human and environmental needs within the country. So the Union model in general needs to be revised in terms of economic policy, that is, economics, what we were saying before about liberalization, let's say violent liberalization.

ELFG1_M2: So if, okay, what I'm going to say is not very horizontal, this was done in some context that for example, the EU could fund the reduction of unemployment for a worker in a country, to do some infrastructure projects for his country, then yes. I say that as an example.

ELFG1_F3: I think what ELFG1_M2 means is that it should be targeted on how to reduce unemployment, i.e. at the same time there should be an investment in businesses that does not actually force people to take miserable jobs just to reduce the unemployment rate. That is what is happening in England at the moment where they are forcing too many people, in the name of reducing the unemployment rate, and without taking into consideration that the other one is a mother, she can't leave, they are forcing them to take miserable jobs and leave where their place of living, just to go to work.

ELFG1_M8: And it's also to do with the way they're doing this so far, of course it's not a horizontal limit in the EU but it could very easily have come from the top, that the way they're trying to attract investment in Greece for example is by giving gifts to big companies, which will create 5, 10, 1000, 100 jobs I don't know, but we've already paid for them and very expensively. So for the EU to create an institution which will ultimately create jobs, but which we as European citizens will have already paid for in advance, will not make sense. So I want to say that this is all very well, but there are very easily some holes that can be created if this is implemented.

ELFG1_F3: Can I ask a clarifying question? I don't understand, are you against European citizens helping a horizontal (short pause). You understand what I mean.

ELFG1_M8: No, not in any way, I just want to say that because we have seen some examples of how some of these schemes can work, not transnationally, I don't know if that has been done, but having seen in Greece how some of these unemployment reduction schemes work, I want to say that if something like this happens it will be very good, I am in favour of it happening, it just needs a lot of attention that ultimately this is done for a substantial reduction of unemployment, what we all said, I just want to say that we have examples already in Greece that this is done for the “image” and ultimately, widens the gap between individuals, instead of reducing it, which is the purpose of reducing unemployment.

M: Today we discussed the EU, touching on different areas such as social inequalities or the economy. Are there other areas that you would say are important when we talk about the relationship and mutual support within the EU?

ELFG1_M4: If there is one thing that I would think about is maybe what I mentioned in another moment, the cultural part. I think there should be a greater exchange, and I don't know how this could be done, of cultural information, maybe in school, something anyway to raise a little bit more the European consciousness that "Me, now I am a European citizen" and to understand who exactly is my fellow citizen who lives on the other side of Europe. I believe that this piece will help much more in terms of solidarity and mutual understanding and how we now operate as a whole. The more isolated we become, the less we know about other Member States, so when the time comes when you have to act very consciously, on an individual level, for your fellow human being, I think that this would help you to understand why a problem has arisen in a country like Slovenia, about which I probably do not know much about Slovenians and how they operate. So by knowing five things more I think I could understand them more, so the personal concept of giving would be a bit easier if I may say so. And again I think the personal contribution has to do purely with how you've grown up, but even that, if it was done at school at some stage, that is at an early stage, to learn five things more. I think that's what it would be.

[01:50:00]

ELFG1_M2: I agree with ELFG1_M4 on what he's saying. I think it would be very beneficial in my opinion if there was also a framework of cultural information about what Europe means and what the West means in its broader sense and how the EU could relate to communities that are outside the EU. Firstly who people are in the EU and how a country like Greece, a country like Slovenia, a country like Finland etc can manage people in very different cultural contexts. Also if smaller countries like Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Malta start to see themselves as part of a European construction, they start to slowly take responsibility for what western colonialism means and how it may have been passed on to their own social attitudes. So not only as something to do with a cultural integration but also as a cultural responsibility of the EU both historically and for the future.

ELFG1_F3: I want to agree very much with ELFG1_M4 on how important school and education is and how so many things have to start from there and create a European culture if we want to continue this construction. It is basically falling apart because there is a total ignorance. Especially in these difficult times. We had a situation where everything was going smoothly, a lot of money was coming in, everyone was happy, but now that the troubles are starting with immigration, foreign policy and so on, and this environment of unification and the knowledge of why this structure has essentially been created has not been created, it is beginning to fall apart, so it is very important to know who belongs to this union and what their history is and what their importance is.

ELFG1_M8: I take on what people have said before and I agree obviously on the education part. It could also exist in the context of what we said about sharing expertise. We hear so much about the Scandinavian schools, the education system and so on and I think there should be an exchange of expertise and there should be a part of the EU that deals with exactly that. Multiculturalism etc. should be promoted, but at a more substantial stage, not at the stage where it already exists. It is a bit dangerous to promote only the European citizen and not the citizen in general, you are still doing a scale-up and keeping some people out. That is a general comment.

ELFG1_F7: I don't have anything to add up on this, of course I agree, another very important concept is ecology and the environment which we discussed anyway and it was there in the hypothetical scenarios, so I put that as a very important concept and all these issues have to be considered so that the EU can contribute, to all these environmental issues that happen around us.

ELFG1_M2: I would like to add one more thing on this cultural aspect, that I think that some steps are being taken in the sense that a more economically oriented person than me thought that it is right to have economic sanctions for countries that do not respect some basic European rules respectively as a learning, it seems right to me, I don't know how this will sound, for cultural deviations, as there are in the governments of Hungary and Poland for LGBTI rights to have corresponding sanctions

ELFG1_M4: I would agree very, very much on the last comment. I think that sanctions especially on human rights abuses should be much stronger. I mean in my mind and in the beginning it was one of the things that I wrote in all three concepts as I think about the EU, human rights, obviously I have in mind how Arab states can operate on this part or African states. But since we are going to build such a structure, I think that the sanctions, especially on human rights abuses, should be much more severe.

ELFG1_M8: I agree. I wanted to say that this is what I had in mind when I talked about "image", in the first - first question at the beginning, that it is an association that promotes human rights and so on, but the actions it takes and the sanctions on member states that violate human rights are obviously nothing.

ELFG1_F7: And that's how my own ambivalence arises.

ELFG1_M1: Just to say on this, I agree in principle with the sanctions but they have to be horizontal, it can't be like we put {sanctions} on China for Uyghurs Muslims but we don't put them on Saudi Arabia or Israel. So there can't be double standards, if you're going to go with the logic of sanctions you're going to put sanctions on Hungary, which violates LGBT rights, but you're also going to put sanctions on Israel, which is a supporter of LGBT rights but is an apartheid state. There has to be some common ground as to what the basic principles are.

ELFG1_M8: Obviously to say that I agree with the horizontal measure and to say that I'm not just referring to sanctions, I don't know if for me sanctions are the solution to something like that. Because also for sanctions, I think, in the European framework there are a lot of loopholes where a country may not "pay" the sanctions, in this part. Regardless of what new sanctions this may bring in the future and create a chain etc. etc. To take a stand on these issues but actively, now whether that will be with sanctions or otherwise I don't know, because sanctions also have other negatives in different areas. So then you have a "policeman" above you who sets some limits, that's not the point, but it may indeed be a means to some improvement, at least in the first stage.

ELFG1_F7: Also the sanction and punishment implies that somebody is teaching you what not to do, so I think I'm going back to the awareness and the discussion involving schools, where they could teach us what to do. To inform us, about our human rights, what they are, how we defend them, so that we know the positive way, so that we don't just know what not to do and not always fear punishment and sanction. It seems more meaningful to me.

ELFG1_M2: I wanted to clarify something in relation to sanctions because I opened it up as an issue. I at least meant it only in the EU context from then on whether there should be sanctions towards third countries is not something I can say as a European citizen that I have my foot in the door and it should be done horizontally and in all directions. Especially towards countries that do indeed violate human rights, which are horrible violations, but beyond that they have a much more complex cultural reality, as in the case of the issues you mentioned of Israel, which, as a European citizen, again seems a rather shady place for me to speak.

ELFG1_M1: Why can't you speak? I'm trying to decode the word shady how you mean it.

ELFG1_M2: Because I think that on this issue on the part of Europeans there is very, very much hidden both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and it seems to me that it takes too long as a topic to give a horizontal answer in relation to that. And usually when I hear some kind of dialogue there are a lot of narratives behind it that don't seem to me to have been subjected to the necessary introspection.

ELFG1_F3: I want to come back to the question of what are the standards that the EU sets and when the member states came in, what were the social standards that they set which was wrong. We now have to look overall what are the standards they have to set in a humanitarian and human rights direction. I believe that some countries that do not meet these conditions should be excluded. So I do not know how much I feel okay with having the same standards with countries that do not respect their citizens, as the EU as a whole would like them to be respected. For me it should be a prerequisite, it should be an entry prerequisite.

[02:00:17]

ELFG1_F6: And in cases where the country itself does not meet those standards? I mean our country.

ELFG1_F3: I think there should be sanctions, because at the moment the EU in a hypothetical scenario and very much beautified scenario has some standards, but it cannot enforce them at all. It is completely consultative around the member states, so to speak. This role is completely decorative. Too much money is wasted in discussions on things that are not ultimately implemented by hard guidelines.

ELFG1_M2: I agree.

ELFG1_M1: In response to both ELFG1_F3 and ELFG1_M2, I think that some common ground needs to be found so that even on complex issues like China-Taiwan, like Israel-Palestine, like Venezuela, some common answers can be given. In other words, some countries should not be whistling indifferently because it is in their interest or not in their interest to do so, and the rest {of the countries} should be beating the drums of war. Somehow we need to set some common preconditions in terms of foreign policy, because we can see that this can work, as it worked with the Iran nuclear pact, for example, when the EU had a common position on negotiations, but we can see that this is not the case with China and Taiwan, with Lithuania, which has declared that recognises Taiwan and is now being sanctioned by China, and all the other countries are whistling indifferently. Or with what is happening now with Germany and Russia, who, because they {Germans} have all their gas coming from Russia, say "let's not get into the Ukraine issue" and this shows a fully fragmented Europe that cannot stand on its own two feet in terms of foreign policy, as a global player. I am not saying that imperialistically, that we should be the policeman of the world, I am just saying that we should have a common position based on some common principles. Even when the issue we are dealing with is messy or complicated.

ELFG1_M8: And on that I would like to ask, what I think you said as a negative of the EU, that we are forced, in quotation marks, to pursue a foreign policy that may express us, for example, about Israel. So, if the EU decides that for Israel, everything is fine over there, are we prepared to follow that? Shouldn't we have a say on that? If there is a common line, which I don't know how it may have been taken, which member states have more power over this or not, is it okay for all member states to follow this faithfully? I mean, should they all follow a policy that has, or should we if we think something is unfair in this change our foreign policy? Obviously, they are conflicting, I don't know which is the right solution of the two, but I do think that indeed, the EU should take a position on foreign affairs, outside its borders, which is a big blow, in my mind, that it doesn't doing it yet, but there is the problem we are discussing about. If this is ultimately for some particular interests which, however, are neither state interest, for our own state or for any state, but neither they are moral. Are we following them or not?

M: I'll take us back to our country. We discussed a lot of issues, we discussed the economy, we discussed human rights, we discussed common foreign policy, internal policy in the EU, ecology. There were so many issues put on the table. Do you think any of them are positively or negatively related to the future of Greece in the EU? And if so, please elaborate.

[Participans ask to repeat the question off record]

M: Considering all the issues that we have discussed today, either the ones that I raised or the ones that you raised, do you think they are linked to Greece's future within the EU? And if so, which ones? And why?

ELFG1_F5: I believe that all the issues discussed should be taken into account by Greece because even if they do not concern it directly, e.g. {Greece} may not experience a natural disaster in the future or may not experience another economic crisis. Everything we have been discussing so far has to do with how the concept of solidarity and cohesion and unity will come together, so it is not possible that it does not concern it within the framework of union.

M: I mean the future of Greece, if for example the ecological could be a “shift event” that will make Greece have a more dominant voice within the EU or let's say the economic if it could be a red line that will drop Greece outside the EU?

ELFG1_F5: You mean, like, negatives?

M: Either positives or negatives, because let's say in terms of the refugee issue it could be a country that will have a strong voice.

ELFG1_M1: Certainly, in terms of the climate crisis Greece is a frontline country. When the scientific predictions say that we will have an extreme heat wave of sixty days a year and therefore extreme wildfires, probably we need {to take into consideration} everything that we have discussed, {for} a coordinated solidarity strategy, let's say how to deal with this.

ELFG1_Μ4: What I want to add, because as Greeks we have this tendency to get divided into two groups in terms of everything, I believe that whatever it comes, whether it is climate, or economic, or whatever, the issue of human rights which still, I think we analyze it, we have not found our balance, we are socially very divided, because neither {belong to} the West nor the East, neither {we are} rich nor poor, we do not even know exactly who we are. For me, if one issue is more important than all, it is the humanitarian part, the solidarity part, the part of giving, the human rights part. If somehow, we find a way to come together a little bit on this issue and somehow agree a little more, I think everything else is much more manageable, not just nationally, but at a pan-European level. Also, {even if} Greece is left behind in four - five things, for example in economic terms that we have been hit hard, if it is a country that is a human rights advocate, I believe that this alone can give it a strong position on the table. This is what I would like to see, more than anything else. It would be nice if it was a rich country, for everyone to have money, for everyone to have a job, etc. What I would like to see from this country to have a stronger voice would be the human rights area.

ELFG1_F6: I think that at least in terms of the refugee issue we are 6-7 years in the forefront with all that is going on and {based on} the discussion we had before, the issue of sanctions or standards we should have been out of the EU, with all that is going on in Greece in the last few years. So I think it's a very crucial piece, we've been handling it for too many years in too many wrong ways and I don't know where the ceiling is in all of this, where this downfall stops.

M: When you say we are managing it, do you mean as Greece or as the EU?

ELFG1_F6: I mean as Greece, managing the EU funding (short pause). So I think it's a burning issue to affect (short pause). In an ideal world, in an ideal EU, like Poland, Hungary should be out for other issues, so we should be out for this issue, clearly.

M: Okay, and before we close I would like to ask you if there is anything else that came to your mind during the discussion that you would like us to discuss or something that you were thinking about before you came to the discussion, regarding the EU and the member states?

(long pause)

M: Thank you very much!