M: Welcome again, thank you very much, it's really very important to me. I would like to start. You have a piece of paper in front of you and I would like you to write down the first three words, whatever they are, that come to your mind when you hear the word European Union.

[Participans thinking for quite long]

M: It may not be a word, it may be a concept or a phrase, whatever you like. When you are ready and prepared we can start a circle and any person who wants to say can start. It is not mandatory any person who wants to can skip.

ELFG3_F1: Unity, security and privileges

ELFG3_F6: Union, People, Policies

ELFG3_F5: Grant, Elite, Oppression

ELFG3_M2: Refugee {crisis}, Memorandum, Parliament

ELFG3_F4: Borders, Loans, Politics

ELFG3_M3: Refugee {crisis}, Diplomats, Cooperation between states.

M: Fine, thank you very much. Does the fact that you are an EU citizen mean anything to you? What does it mean to you that you are an EU citizen?

ELFG3_F1: I put the word privileges, because I really feel privileged and that has a negative side, knowing people from other continents who do not have the same rights as me, I realize that I have too many privileges. I can go and work in many many countries, stay there and keep my security for the time being, something others do not have.

ELFG3_F6: I feel a freedom of movement. I mean, if I want to, I am able to get up at any time and to go to another European country. However, at the same time, I feel a huge insecurity in relation to the policies pursued by the EU in relation to my country.

(long pause)

MA_1: Other people are ok, we can move on.

M: How would you express your attitude and feelings towards the EU as a whole?

ELFG3_F6: Frustration.

M: Can you elaborate a little please?

ELFG3_F6: Yes, that it {EU} actually started as a dream of a union between the states and in fact what seemed to be evolving is greater inequality between the states, instead of being more united. {Now, it is divided} Among the most developed with the most underdeveloped, the countries of the South with the countries of the North, so that's why I feel this feeling.

ELFG3_F4: I agree with ELFG3_F6 on several things, in general I have always been a bit indifferent to being a citizen of the EU and especially in the last years I don't have very positive feelings, because I feel that there is an oppression and a common political line that all the countries follow that have clear interests and create more and more inequalities, so that's all.

ELFG3_F1: Although I know both the positives and negatives of being in the EU and while I can usually express e.g. with friends a negative attitude, for some reason I feel that subconsciously a positive feeling comes out, because living in Greece and seeing the disappointment coming from the politicians, I feel that Europe will support me more than a Greek politician, so because it's less bad, so to speak, and it subsidizes too many programs and so on, I feel that in the end I don't have such a bad opinion, it's okay. I feel like it gives me something positive.

ELFG3_M2: I agree with ELFG3_F4 and ELFG3_F6 more, and I want to add to the disappointment and the attitude that the EU has towards countries outside Europe, e.g. how it deals with the refugee issue.

ELFG3_M3: I would say more that I'm indifferent, I can't say I'm disappointed because I didn't expect it, of course I'm a bit young but it doesn't matter, and it doesn't inspire any confidence in me.

ELFG3_F5: I would say that mostly its indifferent to me, because I don't actually feel that I have any connection with the EU, that is. My first contact is here, I have never felt the EU in my life before. Except for social issues which anyone can be occupied with. If you get occupied with the refugee issue, only there you can have (negative, investigative, some?) contact.

M: Thank you very much. Do you think that Greece's participation in the EU has brought advantages? And if so, which ones?

ELFG3_F1: I would say some advantages that comes {in my mind} are that the country is forced to follow some green laws, the country is forced to change some structures, which maybe if the EU didn't exist, nobody would bother to change. E.g. Some old buildings, to be better maintained. I feel there are things that take us a little bit to the more positive side.

ELFG3_F6: Of course there are some advantages of being a member of the EU. I would say the digital part that has come to Greece, especially in the last year, has come from an EU directive and even though it was late, it came. As well as various changes in the area of public administration that I have been involved in the last year and experienced. It has perhaps taken some steps in terms of rights by being a member of the EU, with the Charter of the fundamental rights and the ECHR. However, it still has some way to go, but it does have advantages.

ELFG3_F5: I'm going to talk about the clearly more easy movement, in European countries. Indeed the security in other European countries is, the medical security is there. That's all.

ELFG3_F4: Apart from what has been said I would say that it is about the university sector. I mean the student exchanges, postgraduate degrees and so on that are easier to do within the EU.

[00:11:36]

M: Okay, and now on the other side, if someone were to say that Greece's membership in the EU has not brought it any advantages, what would those disadvantages be?

ELFG3_F6: I think where it suffers is in the part of the economic management. I mean, more on the part of fiscal policy and on the issue of production, that is, coming to the EU the country had to create an average production model, according to EU standards and guidelines which I think basically {lead to} lost its power in the production part which has to do with agricultural products and subsidies that were given at that time, so instead of being positive it came back as a boomerang. I think that this is also related to the mentality that Greece has had all these years, that is, it is not automatically a European negative of the Union itself, I just think that in order to have positive results, they should have included the part of the culture of Greece in general and not applied solid models. In other words, the identity of the country, the peculiarities of the country, should have been included, as well as with the subsequent memoranda. I think that although the management part had some positive aspects, the way it was implemented was wrong. That's all.

ELFG3_F1: I will also mention as a main one the part of the rural economy {agriculture}. A country like Greece that was trying for many years to get back on its feet, well in a way, before it went {ascended} into the EU. Now automatically, even though we have a very good climate and we could be a bit more autonomous in what we produce and not relying only on tourism, with the conditions that the EU is putting, suddenly we are weaker in this part, completely weak and we end up importing a lot of products that we could produce ourselves, so even if Greece would like to and could leave the EU, it has automatically gone very far behind in this part and can't get back on its feet, so the relationship becomes a kind of dependency relationship and not so much a privilege relationship, being in the EU.

ELFG3_F5: I would say, in general, that the economically weaker countries are basically serving some interests and following the policies that the EU adopts, ( ) {for/as} the EU, which makes each country less independent and basically makes a mass but not in a good sense, obviously, which okay the EU is about uniting countries and so on, but it's very negative I think the way this thing is done.

M: Now let's move on to a hypothetical scenario and suppose there is a huge natural disaster in another European country, you can define it however you want, earthquake, flood, wildfires. How do you think the EU should react?

ELFG3_F1: Considering all the support that the EU is promising from the beginning and the resources it has, I think the problem should be eliminated within a few days.

ELFG3_F6: Of course to send help. The question is depending on the natural disaster that happens, which competences it falls under, because as far as I know the EU has different competences that can be enforced in each member state or it can't. So it depends directly on that, whether it is left with the space to intervene, to what extent that is, and whether it can exceed those competences in this case with a natural disaster and act as quickly as possible. Also, {it depends on} how much the country that is in the EU is tolerable to be able to accept this aid and manage all this. I mean, I think that since we are talking about a union it is a form of cooperation, so {on the one hand} there is the EU that has to send help immediately, but on the other hand, is important, how much the country that is suffering all this disaster has the ability to manage this whole situation. But I think that today the Member States, under the roof of the EU, can, at least could, deal with all these emergencies, these urgent situations much more quickly than is actually the case. So that is where the structure suffers.

ELFG3_F5: Actually, I think that maybe the immediate help is not part of the EU, but mainly that we need to provide money so that a disaster doesn't happen again, that is like the fire in Mati, the reconstruction of a city so that it is properly structured so that people are not trapped when something happens. In essence, to solve the problem and prevent it from happening again.

M: Is there anything else you want to add the people back there? (long pause) Staying in the same scenario with the natural disaster, how do you think the other European countries, and not the EU as a whole, should react if a natural disaster happens in a European country?

ELFG3_M2: Send help, if I'm not mistaken Romania had sent, let's say, firefighters to Greece in the summer to the fires in Evia. In every possible way send help and machinery and everything.

ELFG3_M3: I would say that, in general, there should be solidarity between countries which I don't see, what I want to say sounds very stupid, there is no need for countries to get involved in bureaucratic procedures and to concentrate what they will gain if they help. That's all.

M: What you said is very interesting, you could talk a little bit more about solidarity and, let's say, give and take {between countries}. What you mentioned about the countries at the end.

ELFG3_M3: Yes, what to-. I don't know what else to say, that there needs to be a cooperation without there being a profit or gai- I don't know... that's all.

M: Thank you very much. To the same question whoever or whoever wants to answer.

ELFG3_F4: I agree with ELFG3_M2 and ELFG3_M3, because in a natural disaster if there is no infrastructure to cover the country itself and it cannot be built in a very short period of time, help from nearby countries, if there is the right infrastructure over there {in nearby countries}, I think it is very important and that it could help in many cases.

ELFG3_F6: I would take it one step further, that is, yes, immediate help but at the same time, if we want to prevent natural disasters at a next level, because from what I understand, the way the climate has changed, they will happen more often, one country could learn from the other, I mean learn techniques, learn ways of coping, to bypass this bureaucracy that our country, which is dysfunctional in our country, to learn ways in which it will not have so many bureaucratic procedures, or possibly to clarify its responsibilities so that in the next natural disaster it can deal with them in a better way perhaps. That is all.

[00:22:32]

M: Anyone else want to add anything? (long pause) In particular, what do you think Greece should do in case a European state suffers a large-scale natural disaster?

ELFG3_F4: Let me ask something.

M: Please.

ELFG3_F4: Do we mean for now? The exact same way as Greece is economically, politically and so on?

M: Yes, yes it is a discussion we are having right now. If right now country A, for example Spain or Finland suffers a natural disaster, for example a forest fire, should Greece help? Does it want to help? What do you think?

ELFG3_F4: Yes if it can help, yes, but it always depends on whether it has the capacity to help. I mean it always depends on the size of the disaster, because when it's a country that, let's say all summer long is on fire and can't even cover its own needs, if it has the capacity to cover someone else's need, let's say, okay, yes.

ELFG3_F1: Yes I think Greece should also help and even {if} the country is not so positive about it, at least it could think selfishly and think that by helping another country, it ensures in some way the support of other countries in case there is a disaster in Greece. So looking at it either from one way, of solidarity, or from the way of interest, we should help.

ELFG3_M2: I will just add that beyond the practical part, that Greece can help in terms of expertise. For example in the case of fire, Greece burns every summer, there are significant operational mistakes made. A country facing a fire can learn from them, see what went wrong in Greece.

ELFG3_F6: And I agree that he should send help, but because as you know nobody helps at this level just in the context of solidarity, {Greece} could at the same time demand some things. Just as let's say all countries have a gain for helping another country, we could possibly achieve something better on a diplomatic level by helping someone else.

M: Does any other person want to add anything? (long pause). To make it a bit more country specific, do you think there are countries within the EU that should help more in the event of a disaster than other countries?

ELFG3_M2: Yes, the countries that are economically stronger should help more.

ELFG3_M3: What does more mean? I don't know... I think maybe it should go proportionally, each country {should help} as much as they can. But all countries {must} help.

ELFG3_F1: Apart from more, there are some countries which either because they are neighbours or they have generally good relations with each other in such cases would show how good these relations are indeed, so they could show their brotherhood, so to speak, by helping, to underline this relationship that exists.

M: Shall we continue, or would you like to add something?

ELFG3_F6: I think most of it has to do with the benefit that some country gets from helping some other country. Apart from the proportional part that was said, which is generally true in the EU, I think, in some cases. That is, it has to gain something to help the other country, I think that in solidarity alone, it will not do so. So, most of it has to do with what the political cost and benefit is at any given time.

M: ELFG3_F6 do you want to tell me a little bit more about how you understand solidarity? That solidarity between European states is a give and take relationship? Do you want to tell us a bit more?

ELFG3_F6: Yes, I think exactly that solidarity within the EU has more of an economic and technical character, I mean it is not so much humanitarian, but it is expressed in economic and political terms, that's why I put it that way.

M: Would anybody like to add something on this or would you like to move on? (long pause) Do you think that a European body or a European emergency response authority should be established? And if so how should Greece stand in relation to that?

ELFG3_F6: Yes, I agree that something similar should be set up, with the participation of, let's say, the ministers from the respective ministries of each country, and Greece should be part of it, so that in this way a group of experts and technocrats could be created, who could learn from each other, so that the management could be better, in a next disaster or in a next pandemic possibly, or in an emergency situation. So in a next pandemic we could through this group know better how to manage all this. It would certainly help.

ELFG3_F4: I can't give a yes or no, I mean I don't know if such a body would work, because we were talking before in the context of solidarity and mutual aid between countries. Because I don't have a lot of knowledge and I'm quite young but it's not like I've ever seen EU bodies acting with the solidarity that we would like, so I don't know whether such a group would be effective.

ELFG3_M2: I generally think that no, I don't think that something like that should be set up. There should be help from other states on the terms we talked about before, but something like that is like shifting the responsibility of dealing with a disaster from each and every government to the EU. So any political choice that the government makes in the way it deals with a situation, will not exist afterwards.

ELFG3_M3: I would say that there can't be this if-. Actually, there should first be a sense of solidarity through which such a committee is created, not a committee to create this sense of solidarity, because that will never happen and I agree with what ELFG3_M2 said. But surely there should be some experts who can, who know anyway to manage these issues.

[00:32:35]

M: Okay, and one last question about that. Do you think that if there was a need in another country for a crisis management team, what should Greece do and who should cover the cost?

ELFG3_F6: Greece should be involved in the first place [laughter]. Set up its own team and send it to the EU team that will be set up for this purpose. A specific report maybe, a study, what the country's own needs are and what the country is asking for, what the country will ask for within this framework. I think that the cost should be covered by the EU budget, because we are talking about a European group.

M: Sorry, just one correction, I didn't mean if the group we were talking about before is created. Now I mean if there is a natural disaster in a country and there is a need for a crisis management team, i.e. a fire in Finland and a crisis management team is needed and Greece has at that moment a team of firefighters available. Should Greece send it and if so? Who should cover the cost?

ELFG3_F6: Again, yes {Greece has} to send it. [She is wondering] And who would cover the cost in that case? I think the sending country covers it anyway, I have the impression, that it is indeed done. [She is wondering] Now what should be done? Maybe, it should be done proportionally, I mean since the country that wants help is an EU member, maybe the EU should contribute financially and share the cost. Possibly it would be more mitigating for the country sending aid and the country sending aid would also have an incentive to send aid if the costs were shared.

ELFG3_F1: Of course, if Greece had this possibility to help the country in need. Regarding the cost, as ELFG3_F6 said, ideally it would be good if the EU covered it. However, in case the EU does not want to contribute, and Greece is in a moral dilemma to help or not, it could do so and thus ensure a good relationship with that country or in the future claim some advantage from the EU for this stance or do it for PR reasons.

M: Would you guys like to add anything? (long pause) Okay, let's change the subject. Let's suppose that another Euro crisis happens, and some countries are are hit harder by the crisis, as had happened with the Greek case. How do you think Greece should react?

ELFG3_F1: Precisely because these events are current, Greece should again claim something more sustainable, but this time there should be a more sustainable model and not just not be listened to. Now this may sound utopian, because we were saying that being in the EU we have some privileges but automatically we can't do many things, but ideally it would be good to claim a sustainable model, to recognise the needs of each country and not some {countries} have more rights than others for X reasons and to ensure, as long as the EU promotes the good life, or not good life, how should I put it, that there is a prosperity among countries, that there is indeed a prosperity among countries.

ELFG3_F6: I also think that {Greece} should claim a more sustainable model for the country itself, better negotiating ability maybe and basically the question starts from what the country itself wants for itself. If the country itself does not solve, if its politicians and its citizens do not understand what they want for the country they live in, I think they will never be able to claim something better within the EU. [She is wondering] What else could {Greece} do? That's all, if I think of anything else, I will say it.

M: The question I asked was if a financial crisis happens in the EU and OTHER countries experience the consequences of the financial crisis, not Greece. What should Greece do? If for example Germany, or Spain, or the Czech Republic, the Czech Republic is not in the eurozone excuse me, let's say Slovakia, experience the effects of an economic crisis again, how should Greece stand?

ELFG3_F6: Can I ask something? If there is a crisis, of the Euro within the EU, won't it affect all countries?

M: Yes, but some will be hit much harder, like the countries of the South in 2010, like the countries of the South- [she nods me to stop, because ELFG3_F6 understood].

ELFG3_F1: I think it's very utopian to say, help, because I don't think they would help economically, as long as it has to do with the economy and not a natural disaster. But, they can very openly support, erhm I mean we support a country and stand up to them thinking that we might be in that position and if we can't help with resources we can help with our attitude.

ELFG3_F5: I, quite realistically, I just hope that {Greece} doesn't somehow take advantage of that and create a power relationship with the countries that have suffered greater wounds. That.

ELFG3_F6: I think {Greece} can support it on a diplomatic level, which means economically it's impossible. So, in some other way, diplomatic maybe we can support a country in relation to the country's attitude towards Greek-Turkish possibly, the country's attitude towards America, more politically that is, not so much economically. Economically I don't think {Greece} can support in any way [laughter].

[00:41:38]

M: Okay, would you like to add anything, or shall we continue? (long pause) So this financial crisis is happening in this hypothetical scenario and Greece is the country that is being hit harder by the financial crisis. How do you think other European countries should react?

ELFG3_M3: I suppose in a similar way as Greece would treat other countries that would be hit. So what we answered before about Greece.

M: Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?

ELFG3_M3: Just as Greece would support the other countries in any way it could, either politically, or economically, or so-, not economically I guess [laughter], (short pause) so should the other countries, not all of them I don't know actually, depending on which one wants [laughter] I guess.

ELFG3_F1: As we said for the other countries, we would like of course to have help for Greece as well. Either financially in case some countries are better off economically and want to help or with their attitude. I think it is at least unacceptable for a country not to mention {it} at all when witnesses something unfair and since, as we said, the EU exists for some reasons, it would be good if when neighbouring countries see something unfair or something that another country cannot bear, it costs them nothing to show a negative attitude and approve some policies and thus support Greece.

M: Going back to the first scenario, that other countries are being hit harder and Greece is the one that has to support them, in whatever way it can support them. Do you think there should be a different reaction of Greece, depending on the country that is being hit by the financial crisis?

ELFG3_F6: Yes, possibly because it will have to do with the relationship they have. So Greece has a different relationship with France, let's say, another relationship with Poland. I mean diplomatic, economic and not social, right? I'm talking at that level. Yes, it is different, because the interests are different each time. So in another way it would support, possibly, France, which came to my mind now with the agreement they made and in another way Spain maybe. So yes, it does matter.

ELFG3_M2: I understand what ELFG3_F6 says as the most realistic scenario, I just think that ideally there shouldn't be discrimination when a country is in need. Regardless of the diplomatic relationship that country has with Greece.

ELFG3_F4: In many questions I don't know if I should answer according to EU ideals or reality. Just in this case I definitely agree with ELFG3_M2, that there can't be discrimination [she laughs, M guesses it's because she calls her friend with a nickname] between countries, since it's an act, I can't find the word (long pause).

M: Solidarity?

ELFG3_F4: I wouldn't say solidarity but obviously because before we were discussing the framework of solidarity, there shouldn't be a distinction in interest because that negates the concept of solidarity. I mean looking at the interest that the country gains, it completely nullifies this act.

M: ELFG3_F4 Do you mean give and take? Do you mean the exchange relationship invalidates solidarity?

ELFG3_F4: Yes, to distinguish which country to help, according to the relationships we have or the agreements and so on, invalidates the solidarity act that the country would do to help in the crisis, so to speak.

ELFG3_F1: There could be discrimination in terms of the needs that exist at any given time, because Germany can now for example show up and say that it needs money because there is a lot of unemployment for example. We should ideally weigh up the needs each time and help the countries, FIRST, these which are most in need and moving up this pyramid to help some countries that are in a relatively good situation.

M: Thank you for your answers. Regarding what ELFG3_F4 said before, I would like to keep in mind that we don't need to answer according to the ideals of the EU or the ideals of Greece, I want exactly what you think when I ask you a question. That is the point of the research we are doing. Going also to the scenario that Greece is the country that is being financially hurt, do you think that if Greece receives financial support again, financial assistance, from other European countries, do you think that Greece should listen to certain rules that go along with that financial support?

ELFG3_F4: I think no, I mean if the financial support that other countries will contribute, it is as we said again in the context of solidarity, it should not be accompanied by rules.

ELFG3_F1: If the aid comes with rules, then it is not really aid, so I also disagree with the rules.

ELFG3_F6: I will say that clearly there should be rules in financial aid because without rules we probably won't- we won't get the expected results. I mean if there is not an oversight, but oversight not in the context of authoritarianism, in the context of evaluation. That we have one, two, three, four things to implement, we implement them, and we see the positive and negative effects of this implementation. Basically, and through this we can shape them if there are specific rules and cond- and the production of positive or negative results through this we can then shape what aid will be sent next time, or how the aid itself will be shaped within the existing framework, otherwise if we leave everything "in their fate", everyone can do what they want.

ELFG3_F5: Ideologically I disagree with offering help but on my terms and all that. But I also don't trust giving money to the state apparatus and letting the state help us. I don't believe that the state will help us.

ELFG3_F4: If there were some rules, I just don't know how another country, when the country itself is experiencing an economic crisis could manage the internal politics, how another country could set rules in the internal policies against the crisis in the country that is going through a crisis.

[00:51:20]

M: Is there anything else you'd like to add? (long pause) Let's put the financial crisis behind us and go to a third and final hypothetical scenario. Considering that in Europe there are disparities and inequalities both between states and within states, between citizens. Do you think that there should be a common European programme aimed at reducing such inequalities?

ELFG3_F1: Sure, I think that there should be such a programme aiming at equality. Sometimes it is not important that we all have the same needs. It is not likely. So, there should be some criteria and according to them this equality should be regulated as much as possible.

ELFG3_F6: Certainly there should be such a programme and in fact I think the international convention on human rights has quite a lot of things in it, these kinds of rights. The question for me is how these are to be implemented, that is, they exist to a certain extent within the EU but they are not put into practice, both between states and within states as you said, that there are inequalities of all kinds, so what I am wondering is in what way apart from having competent bodies and maps and I don't know what else, to implement these so that at some point, maybe not to eliminate them because I don't know if it is feasible but to reduce the inequality that exists.

M: To give a more concrete example, if we took unemployment as inequality, would you be in favour of having a European body, which would be funded transnationally, by all the European states, and essentially aiming to eliminate unemployment transnationally again?

ELFG3_F1: I agree, given that food and shelter is a fundamental right and should exist and since it will perhaps never be so generously shared and recognised as something that should exist, job security is the closest step to that. So, it would be good for states to fund something like that.

ELFG3_M3: I can't see how that can work, since the EU and its states are in a system which is based on unemployment. I mean, surely there must be unemployed people so that jobs can be recycled to serve, let's say, capital. (long pause) Sorry, I mean it seems to me impossible to eliminate unemployment. That's all.

ELFG3_F6: It could be eliminated no, but it could be reduced or different conditions could be formed, and I think that even if a similar body was created, it probably wouldn't be 100% eliminated, but it would still possibly help in generating jobs between states or greater mobility or in forming an educational system such that the human resources are channelled into jobs so that they don't end up unemployed. Maybe something like that would be interesting, because I think it all starts with education at that level, so possibly a policy of this body could be how the education system doesn't create future unemployed people, perhaps.

ELFG3_F4: Actually, what I was thinking is that a lot of the inequalities that exist are due to the way the EU works. So again, a group like this, I think it will work a bit superficially, which means that again there will be criteria for how it will help, to eliminate some inequality anyway, but without actually helping because it will create new inequalities within that group. I do not know how to explain it further.

ELFG3_M2: I also think that it would just wouldn't solve the problem, even if it was, let's say, covered, if there were jobs for all people, because the minimum wage would have to be raised, because there are a lot of people who can't live on one job, let's say.

ELFG3_M3: If this body has to have its powers expanded, then it will end up doing the work of the EU, so there is no reason for this body to exist. EU just has to do its job. It does not have to set up a body to do its work, but it has to concentrate on, the work of the body must be specific.

M: That was a very nice pass to move on to the next question. Does anyone want to add anything? If a country has high unemployment rates, should the EU intervene?

ELFG3_F6: It should intervene in a supportive way, that is to say maybe to create a space and incentives for more jobs to open up. I think it's one of the current government's programmes to create jobs coming from EU directives, unless I'm wrong. So it should certainly intervene, that's its job, the question is when it intervenes or makes a directive or enters the country then what happens? That's the problem [laughter]. But yes, as a first step of course.

[01:00:26]

M: Okay, last question on unemployment. If another country, European, of course, has high unemployment rates, do you think Greece should contribute to that country? Even if it entails additional costs for Greece?

ELFG3_F1: No, given that Greece has high unemployment and it would be good to deal with this internal problem first before helping another country.

ELFG3_F5: Since it has the same problem I don't see how it can help.

ELFG3_F6: I think it helps indirectly, anyway. Since there's free movement of human resources, it doesn't mean that "hello, how many of you are going to work elsewhere today" or whatever, but it basically forces you in some way to go to another country that has a demand for labor and fill the unemployment that exists there in some way. So I think that the unemployment rate is being covered in some way by this movement that is taking place. Now in terms of helping it as a policy let's say, I don't think it could do that. I mean I'm trying to think of a way and I can't. I think yes, as a policy it couldn't do it, it does it maybe in an indirect way.

M: So today we came in touch with different European issues which had to do with social and economic inequalities, do you think there are other areas which are relevant to this and which touch on European solidarity and cohesion?

ELFG3_F3: The refugee issue, if I understand what you are asking. I think it's a very big issue that concerns Europe and not only the relations between the states within the EU but also the EU with other continents, I guess.

M: In terms of, let's say, the existence of the EU itself and the relationship of European states with each other, how do you think the refugee issue affects that? And not just you ELFG3_M3 I mean anyone who wants to answer.

ELFG3_M2: By having countries closing borders and because Greece is the, let's say, the country that refugees cross to go to Europe, they gather in Greece and don't go to other European countries.

ELFG3_F6: I think the refugee issue is a very important issue that is affecting the EU and it has found it as an excuse not to have a common European policy on refugees to create this chaos so that each country can do what they believe. I believe that it can use this in brackets in its own favour, so that it can also reduce the population {of the refugees/migrants} that exists at the moment in Greece, which objectively cannot integrate all of them and they themselves, many of them, do not want to integrate. Also another issue has to do with gender inequalities which directly concerns the EU. Gender relations, as well as the queer community, the LGBTQ community, all of which to a certain extent, a debate has been developed but there is still a long way to go and also racism in general which while we are talking about a unity, people, individuals, capital, commodities whatever this includes, is strong in all countries, which is also seen with the governments that exist in Poland and Hungary in recent years, so I think that these are three issues that the EU should resolve and put forward proposals for resolution immediately.

ELFG3_M2: I think racism is linked to the refugee issue. I mean the governments that ELFG3_F6 mentioned are also the ones that have decided a more, that have chosen a very tough stance.

M: And how would you say that this attitude of these European states, let's say, affects the support of the Union as a whole and every member state separately?

ELFG3_F6: Inevitably one state is affected by the other because we are basically talking about a Union, which has to some extent common policies, so when something goes wrong in one country, whether it is social, whether it is political, whether it is economic, automatically the others are affected in some way. Let's say Europe has a common monetary policy, one state influences the other and, in this way, the fiscal part has to be balanced. Also, in the inequalities of the more common-humanitarian, such as the refugee issue, when one country closes its borders, it puts a burden on another. So, either indirectly or directly it becomes a domino effect. That is how I have it in my mind.

M: Concerning everything we've discussed, natural disasters, economic crisis, unemployment, refugees, human rights, how do you think they are connected to the future of Greece in Europe?

[01:09:15]

ELFG3_F1: Seeing the lack of support in some cases, that there's no equality between countries, you would think that Greece's future in the EU doesn't look very positive.

ELFG3_F6: I would say that on the one hand it seems like the whole structure is heading towards the cliff, but at the same time there are some things, some small details that have a positive impact on Greece in this chaos. Because I have it in my mind as chaos. So, perhaps with a little effort, which is very idealistic what I'm saying now, Greece could take some steps within the EU, which it has done, in the midst of all the negatives that exist. I do not know, of course, how much we want that. So for me it is a question of how much Greece itself wants to be in the EU or whether it does so because it cannot do otherwise. So basically it is trapped in a labyrinth that is spinning around its tail because it cannot meet its obligations otherwise.

ELFG3_M2: I'm going to go back to the refugee issue, which I think is a perennial issue, because Europe is one of the biggest weapons exporters, so in effect it's creating a problem which it then faces with the influx of refugees and on the shoulders of people. So this will be a problem that will exist in the future, and it will be a problem for Greece as well.

M: The issue that you brought to the discussion is the refugee issue and human rights. Closing slowly you would like to go around the circle and give your opinion on these two issues. Let's start from ELFG3_F1 and go round in a circle.

ELFG3_F1: Can you repeat the two issues?

M: The refugee and human rights.

ELFG3_F1: I feel like I don't have anything specific to say because I feel like it's a major issue, which is very, very confusing and I'll just say that I hope it's sorted out in a way that all countries take a piece of support and that the burden doesn't fall on Greece because it can't manage it properly.

ELFG3_M2: On the refugee issue I will not dwell so much on the problems it creates in terms of cohesion between states but on how inhumane the EU policy is, there are many pictures that show this. It certainly has nothing to do with the values the EU had before it was built and it certainly has nothing to do with solidarity.

ELFG3_M3: I will say that exactly the EU does not have a humanitarian character and it has more of an economic character it is not so much interested in these issues or it is interested to a certain extent, which serves, let's say, different policies. That's all.

ELFG3_F4: Actually I also agree with what ELFG3_M3 said and to a large extent with ELFG3_M2 that we do say the EU is not trying to serve people as people and create sustainable situations for everybody but it serves much more economic interests. That's all.

ELFG3_F5: On the refugee issue I also agree with the guys, on human rights I think any improvement is mainly for appearances and many things do not change at the base of EU society. That's all.

ELFG3_F6: And I think that the EU is more economic-political in nature and not as humanitarian as it would like to say it is, so possibly that's why even if a common policy is created, the question is on what terms it will be created. Furthermore, again with human rights, the question is whether, because everything to do with social issues is difficult and changes are difficult and take years to happen, the question is how far this can be done at the basis and in the structure of societies and how the EU understands the specificity and particularity of each society in order to implement the stakes that it says.

M: Nice, 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, in terms of the EU and the member states?

(long pause)

M: Thank you very much!