M: Okay, then we would like to start with an introduction round, so would you please tell us what your name is.

NLFG1_F1: Hi, my name is NLFG1_F1.

NLFG1_F2: I am NLFG1_F2.

NLFG1_M3: I am NLFG1_M3.

NLFG1_M4: I am NLFG1_M4.

NLFG1_M5: I am NLFG1_M5.

M: All right, thank you all for coming. Eh, you have a piece of paper in front of you with Think in Ink written on it. Would you write on it what are the first three thoughts that come to your mind when you hear the European Union or the EU?

M: Okay, then we'll go around the table and you can tell us what you wrote down. NLFG1_M5, would you like to start?

NLFG1_M5: Common market.

M: And the other one?

NLFG1_M5: Oh yes. The face to the outside world, at least in my opinion, and a common policy {for people}.

NLFG1_M4: Yes, my first idea is just very positive. Eh, for me the EU also means a lot of freedom and at the same time, for me, the EU is also always incredibly unreliable, especially towards new candidate countries. Those are my first three things.

M: Oh, don't forget to say your name.

NLFG1_M4: So, this was NLFG1_M4, hi. [laughter]

NLFG1_M3: My name is NLFG1_M3, my points are an economic powerhouse, a ground of stability. In fact, we have had peace for many years, also thanks to the EU in Europe.

NLFG1_F2: All right, NLFG1_F2! I think eh Brussels. Eh, being together with many countries and therefore also it becomes big, a lot, a bit massive so to speak.

NLFG1_F1: I wrote down Brussels too. Well, mainly meeting about issues. And yes, I also had Europe, as more, say as one big united front actually.

M: Okay, and could you explain further what you mean by front?

NLFG1_F1: Well, because you do, yes, also a bit of what NLFG1_M3 perhaps meant, that yes, we stand for something together, we make choices together and everyone, in my opinion, mostly stands behind these choices. And then, for example, with the war and so on, how do we deal with that? And yes, that we then are more of a united front.

M: Yes, and the unreliability?

NLFG1_M4: So, yes, well, there are just several candidate countries and maybe Ukraine now as well, which is also being pushed fairly hard by Von der Leyen. However, a number of other countries, like Albania and Northern Macedonia have been sitting in the waiting room for years. Eh, all kinds of promises are made to these countries and are basically never kept by the EU, and that is something that, in my opinion, is much worse for the image of the European Union outside the EU.

M: And NLFG1_M5, you agree?

NLFG1_M5: Yes, I totally agree with that. Eh-

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: -Bulgaria and Romania have joined, against the wishes of some, but the reason for keeping them out and that also counts for those new candidates, is corruption. However, corruption exists in all these other countries as well, just as much as in the countries which are therefore in the waiting room. Oh God, that is also the biggest problem, I think, in the southern part of Europe. Yes, you can call it nepotism, we have that in the Netherlands too. Or you can really call it corruption.

M: And someone also said powerhouse. Can that be further explained?

NLFG1_M3: Europe is the biggest economic powerhouse in the world, so this also imposes standards on the rest of the world in terms of economy. So big in fact, that we are a market of almost 500 million inhabitants. Every Tuesday I always read, in the Fries Dagblad and also the Leeuwarderkrant, pieces about Europe. Koos van Houdt writes pieces there, he seems to be the correspondent about that for years and that shows to what extent we as Europe, have developed the power structures between the economic Commission and the European Parliament and all those things more. How that fight that needs to take place takes place. You see that the European Parliament is gaining more and more power. But if we are the largest economic power, we can simply enforce standards against America, China and other countries. I didn't know that either, but that seems to be the case. So, you're talking about security, for example, but also food safety. In America, this is not nearly as much of an issue as it is here. That market is in security, but our food safety in Europe is much better regulated than in the rest of the world. And if we, if they want to export to us, they have to comply with those conditions; if they don't, it simply won't enter this market. And vice versa, we do export on the basis of our standard, while they do not have to. But that was the discussion at the time with Jaud- {meaning Jean-Claude Juncker} what was his name? The predecessor of the woman who is sitting there now. With eh (short pause)-

NLFG1_M5: Michel {meaning Charles Michel}?

NLFG1_M3: -No, with eh Trump about the modified soya. And Europe didn't want that and indeed at a certain point, a deal was made about the modified soya because Europe allowed having it in a certain quantity. But for the rest, it is very much restricted, so in that sense, yes, we as Europeans do benefit a lot from the fact that we are Europeans.

M: And you were talking about Brussels? What does that mean to you?

NLFG1_F2: Well, I think also because eh Brussels there, I feel they are always meeting there, consulting. Eh, the European Parliament is there, of course. In that sense, I think mainly of Brussels.

M: And do you agree?

NLFG1_F1: I agree.

M: Then we'll move on to the next part: How would you describe your overall position, attitude, or feeling toward the EU? I'll throw that into the group. No, now you can just think about it and answer.

NLFG1_M5: I am very positive about that. I really feel European first and only then Dutch, or Northern Dutch and only then Dutch [laughter]. But Brussels has actually been the central point of Western Europe for centuries. It was already important during the reign of Charles the Fifth. So yes, I find that very symbolic, very beautiful.

NLFG1_F1: I do actually agree with NLFG1_M5. In my opinion, it’s also something very positive. I think it's good that we all stand for something and that we are trying to find a solution for something together because I think, say if we as the Netherlands would be in a critical situation, we are not going to manage it on our own. Then I think it's safe, I feel very comfortable with the fact that there is a support group that you can fall back on. Yes.

NLFG1_M3: NLFG1_M3 fully agrees.

NLFG1_F2: NLFG1_F2 also [laughter].

NLFG1_M4: Well, NLFG1_M4 thinks [laughter] that the EU, in particular, has a very moderating influence on things. So, on the one hand, the EU can work to get things done that you can't do on your own and on the other hand it can ensure that certain rights are better guaranteed, because if you suddenly want to take away one of those rights, then the rest can also say: hey, get a grip. So, the extremes are being taken out a bit more and that's a nice feeling at the moment. That even the Orbáns in Hungary still have to keep to such a minimum standard of the European Union in order not to lose everything, so to speak. I think that is quite a nice feeling in these times in the Netherlands as well.

NLFG1_M5: Yes, I agree.

M: Okay, would you say that EU membership is beneficial for the Netherlands or non-beneficial?

NLFG1_M5: Beneficial.

M: And why?

NLFG1_M5: That with all, you can achieve much more than alone.

[00:09:58]

NLFG1_M3: I also say well, if we weren't members of the EU, we wouldn't be living in this extreme prosperity as we have been doing for years and also are used to. If I look especially at history and how the Netherlands was 100/150 years ago, it was in a very poor state. I've also, I'm afflicted with residency, and I've had courses on that, and they showed a picture of how the Netherlands lived in the period 1875/1920. You won't believe it, but the average developing country has better housing now than the Netherlands did then. It was one fat, FILTHY PILE OF RUBBLE, and if you look at how the Netherlands is accommodated now, it's a difference between night and day. That applies, for example, to all of our roads, but also to our entire infrastructure; we are one of the most digitally accessible countries in the world, and that is unprecedented. We would never have been that on our own and we are an open economy, so we are completely dependent on our neighbours.

NLFG1_M4: It, of course, also has to do with that common market, because indeed what NLFG1_M3 says is that until 1940 the Netherlands was certainly not a forerunner in the world, it really started to decline at that time. However, because of that open market, we of course have a very crucial position in Europe in terms of location and things like that. It's also simply beneficial in terms of free trade, of course, but also in terms of free movement and simply in terms of cooperation, so I'm very happy with that.

NLFG1_F1: Yes, I am also very positive, yes, just like what the gentlemen have also indicated, I do agree with that.

NLFG1_F2: Yes, for me also.

M: Okay, does anyone want to make a final comment on this? Then we move on to the first scenario. Imagine there is a major natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a flood or a forest fire, in one of the EU countries. How do you think the EU should react?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: Fast [laughter]. Coordinated.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, and I think they have to provide the tools that are needed to fight a natural disaster, for example, certainly to deal with the consequences. And I think this has happened before with the forest fires in Greece. This has already happened about four or five times. Whenever the Greeks ask for help, and they do have to ask for help, because it's their own country, of course, but in that sense, there is always a fairly quick and prompt reaction from the EU countries to make resources and people available to fight the fire. And if you look at the floods that took place in Belgium, Germany and here last year, well, you see the same thing.

NLFG1_M4: Agreed.

(long pause)

M: How should other EU countries react then?

NLFG1_F1: I do think that we, being the Netherlands, are not always very expectant. You know we react, and we go somewhere. I think we react pretty quickly, and I think that some other countries could take a better example of that and not be so wait-and-see, so to speak.

NLFG1_M4: I don't think that's true actually because you often see that with forest fires in Greece and such, it's the countries surrounding them that respond much faster than the Netherlands. At least, that's what I always think, that Bulgaria, Albania, and Italy send help very quickly, and the Netherlands always come up with a helicopter a week later [laughter], you know. Yes, the forests are pretty much gone now, but it's nice that we're still coming. So, I also think it has to do with where you are located. And I also think it has to do with the media attention it gets. If we send a helicopter, it will be in the media and if Bulgaria does, then it will not be in the media.

NLFG1_M3: Maybe in the media there, but not with us.

NLFG1_M5: It does not appear in the media there.

M: Should some EU countries do a little more than others?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M3: Specifically on those disasters, or in general?

M: On those, specifically on those natural disasters.

NLFG1_M4: I do think-

(short pause)

NLFG1_M4: -of course it costs money. One country is much richer than another country. I do think that to some extent you can assume that a country that has a lot more economic capacity will do a bit more than a country that has, I don't know, Malta or something like that, which has very little money. Hey, of course, that has a much bigger impact. So, in that sense, yes, and on the other hand, you just have to do what you can, I think.

NLFG1_M5: But of course, it is also the case that it is the countries with the most expertise about what is going on at the time, that they react first. If there is an earthquake somewhere, we can send the Dutch, but they have less expertise than, say, the Greeks. Eh, a flood disaster, we know all about that. I mean, it just depends on what kind of disaster it is, for who should go first. But you have to do that together-

(short pause)

NLFG1_M5: -that has to be coordinated.

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: I think we still miss that sometimes.

(long pause)

NLFG1_M3: Yes.

M: Okay, if it were necessary to send a crisis management team, for example, firefighters and doctors to the country, do you think the Netherlands should do that? And who should cover the cost of that support?

NLFG1_F2: Yes, I do think that we should send people there, or let people who want to go there, go there. About the costs, yes, I think we should all bear those together within the European Union.

NLFG1_M5: A European fund.

NLFG1_F2: Yes, for example.

NLFG1_F1: Yes, I agree.

NLFG1_M4: Yes, it doesn't really matter whether the EU pays, or we pay. If the EU pays it, we end up paying it. Um, so yes, we should.

M: Okay, do you feel that you have a responsibility to help personally?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: Not anymore.

NLFG1_M3: I say no, at least not in case of disasters or something like that, then I'll get in everyone's way, don't think that has any effect.

NLFG1_F1: I also say no.

M: Okay, and why?

NLFG1_F1: Well, I also think that it is better to send people who are specialised and trained in this. And because, what NLFG1_M3 also says, otherwise you just walk around like a headless chicken, which is not the intention, I think.

NLFG1_F2: You have to, you have to be able to add value at that moment in order to mean something and not eh.

NLFG1_M4: Yes, yes, it's not that I don't want to put energy into it when there's a forest fire, but it doesn't make much sense of course. I agree with NLFG1_F2 in that.

M: And even if you don't have to go there yourself, but other personal help?

NLFG1_F2: What do you mean by that?

M: There are other ways to give help personally. Without going there.

NLFG1_F1: Well, you know, I think that if, for example, a fund starts up or something like that, then I would give money for that. Eh, I have no problem with that. Then I would really be prepared to contribute to it. Or if things are needed, and I also have that, for example, with Ukraine, right? Then they stand in front of the supermarket, and I buy something for those people. Yes, I don't find that to be a problem.

NLFG1_M5: That is, Ukraine is a very good example of a very big disaster that Europe immediately responded to.

[NLFG1_M4 has doubts?]

NLFG1_M4: Well, immediately?

NLFG1_M5: Yeah, well. The response was pretty fast, and I have this idea that Russia was hoping that Europe would fall apart because of all these refugees coming here, and they've achieved the opposite. And that's, that's good [assent group]. I've never seen so much solidarity within Europe lately.

NLFG1_F1: I completely agree.

NLFG1_M5: I am quite proud of that.

NLFG1_M3: Well, NLFG1_M3 for a moment. It does indeed give a good feeling that in that sense it has been picked up so quickly. That in that sense what was perhaps the intention of the aggressor, as it is so beautifully called, both the EU and NATO would burst out of each other and give each other a slap, fully fighting, and that did not happen. Regardless of an Erdogan or an Orbán who at one point did blow the whistle but who is now singing a few tones lower.

[00:19:50]

NLFG1_M5: Sure.

NLFG1_M3: Because he thinks, yes, I am part of the big picture. Also, Hungary signed the agreement stating that we are in solidarity and that we all have to solve these problems together. Yes, and at a certain point, this does work. And to what extent we will want to, can and are going to get rid of Russian oil and gas as soon as possible, that is to be seen of course, but that is another scenario.

NLFG1_M4: And yet, first an invasion was needed. Crimea was of course already occupied for a long time and after that occupation, we, the EU and especially Germany continued to build Nord Stream Two and to trade with Russia and all those kinds of things. Then there was an invasion. Then we thought: well, maybe we should do something about Russia. To be honest, I find this rather late in the day, and it is, of course, good that the EU is stronger than Putin had expected, but, on the other hand, that also says something about what he had expected, what we are all putting out.

NLFG1_M5: But it is, the current situation is different from Crimea. Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in a drunken stupor. And that, well you can be for it or against it, but there Russia had more right to speak than with the whole rest of those two little republics. That is bullshit. The Crimea I can imagine a bit more. However, it is not appropriate.

NLFG1_M3: I am talking. Yes, if you just look at how, indeed, how the USSR looked, that you indeed went from the buffer from Russia, that it went into Germany with caution. If you see that old map again, we had our little strip and for the rest, it was all Russia. Now Europe is there and then Russia starts. Yes, that is quite a difference. I can see from the Russian point of view that you think, well, we want to go that way. [agreement NLFG1_M5]

NLFG1_M5: It is not the first time that Europe has invaded Russia.

NLFG1_M3: So, there is some, I can somewhat imagine the suspicion.

NLFG1_M4: Of course, the difference is, I think, that Europe is not invading Russia now, but Russia is invading Europe. That there has been a change on the map around 1960, yes. But yes, there have been more changes, also after 1960, and you can't suddenly start changing them because you decide in a drunken mood to start occupying again. It just doesn't work that way, so no, I can't imagine anything about the occupation of Crimea. That is simply illegal, and it is not allowed, and we should not do it.

NLFG1_M5: No, it's not appropriate.

NLFG1_M4: No.

M: Okay, to get back to the natural disasters. Any final comments on the natural disasters and what the EU should do or what the Netherlands should do?

(long pause)

[No further comment from anyone]

M: Then we move on to the next scenario. If an economic crisis like the Euro crisis happens again and some countries are adversely affected or hit harder than others, how do you think the Netherlands should react?

(long pause)

M: If other countries are hit harder than the Netherlands?

NLFG1_M5: In solidarity, I would almost say.

M: Okay, and what do you mean by that?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: Shared sorrow I would say. I can't really elaborate, but like, you can't have a country being hit harder than you are, and then you sit back and say: ‘Yeah, too bad guys.’ No, but how it should be worked out in practice, I don't know.

NLFG1_M3: No, it's tricky. Tricky to answer that question because if you look at the economic crisis from 2008, the big European banking crisis, and what became the big economic crisis, the Netherlands has not had so much influence on that whole story. Look, we are an open economy and if things are not going well in the world, we suffer terribly because our economy is severely affected. To what extent we should help other people or other countries that might be affected even more, yes, that is when you get to the solidarity funds. This has now been indicated as well, as a result of the major crisis, that a fund of 750 billion has been set up. The discussion about it was, well, half of that can be a gift and half is a loan that you have to pay off. The Netherlands took a very firm stance and said: yes, we have made heavy cuts and blah blah blah and those southern countries celebrated and we did not. The previous Minister of Finance got everyone a bit angry by saying that. In the end, it was decided that half is a gift, and we have to comply with that. The same with the finance minister before him. He said the money we spent, and lent, to Greece will be paid back up to the last euro including interest. Well, this hasn’t happened, and he knew that it wouldn’t happen. So, in this respect, we have, we have always shown solidary within the possibilities that exist and we have contributed I don't know, four, fifteen or eighteen billion to this fund of 750 billion, according to ( ) the number of inhabitants, so of the GNP. Well, we are paying that, and I think we are already doing it very nicely. But the big hits, of course, come from Germany and the other countries. They contributed much more to the 750 billion fund.

(long pause)

NLFG1_M3: as far as I know, I have to get it from the newspaper and other things. I think well, the Netherlands is just doing its thing. And yes, that's within the agreements that were made. I mean what the heads of government, what they actually do in the rooms, we don't know either [laughter]. We have to take it from what is said there and from the press and what journalists can extract from it. I often only read about what exactly was discussed in documentaries years later. Yes, I always like to follow that.

NLFG1_M4: I think that, of course, it's also a scenario in which, for once, things go really badly here. Well, our economy is certainly not doing too well at the moment either, we are already assuming that, if countries have to be supported, it will be other countries, preferably Greece in our minds. But that could also be us. I do think that solidarity is important. I think we often forget that the Netherlands is one of the larger economies within the EU. Yes, there's Germany and France, but the Netherlands is at the top of the list, so of course, you can expect something from them. And we benefit a lot from those other countries. Plus, it is of course Greece, but also Italy, who are taking in all the refugees at the moment and who are doing an awful lot, while we here in Ter Apel are actually doing nothing at all. The Netherlands takes no responsibility at all there, so yes, there are things we should contribute more to. We forget that other countries do that too.

NLFG1_M3: I completely agree with that. If you look at how those camps in Greece, how, for years now, those people are actually languishing there, and the Netherlands doesn't lift a finger except to make its financial contributions to keep those camps going but doesn't take anything in themselves. The Netherlands is very, very reticent regarding the reception of refugees in relation to, especially the southern countries and we have had that deal with Turkey. They get so many billion for the reception of Syrians, well, we and Germany have paid a lot of money for that, so we have bought off the problem. Well, from a moral point of view you could say: well, the Netherlands can do things differently.

(long pause)

M: So, if the Netherlands is negatively affected, how do you think the other EU countries should react?

NLFG1_F1: Also with, I will say, solidarity. What we also do to other countries, I think that, yes, that, you also expect that in return from the other countries. That they also help us to get back on top, either with financial aid or with whatever we need at the time.

NLFG1_M4: I hope, I actually hope that they're even a little bit more solidary than we always are because we always demand all kinds of things in return, which we actually have no say in. I think if other countries start doing that to us, we will suddenly find it very painful.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, and also in terms of geographical location, if we experience a flood or a war situation and five million of our seventeen million inhabitants have to leave the country, then we can hope, pray, fear that Germany, Belgium, France, Switzerland will be so good as to welcome us in their country. But I don't think that an Italy or a Greece, even if they are a long way away, but I doubt whether Poland or those countries would be so eager to welcome us.

M: Would you differentiate among the different countries, on how they should react? Should everyone react in the same way? Or is there a distinction?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: I think everyone should react in the same way.

NLFG1_M4: On the basis of carrying capacity.

[00:29:58]

NLFG1_M5: Yes, and Italy is not that much further than Ukraine is from the Netherlands. So that flow of refugees will start, I think, towards Italy.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, yes, it is from a different angle. But if you see how Europe, in fact, deals with the whole wall around it, with Frontex, the organisation that is supposed to guard and steer that, all those directors who are now suspended and deported because the past five years it just turned out that it is a corrupt organization, and that Europe as a whole is not very keen on taking in many refugees. So, you also saw that with Ukraine and Poland because they felt, they feel connected to these people. Because in ancient times, part of Poland was part of Ukraine, and part of Latvia had an influence there as well. Yes, centuries ago, people felt connected to each other, so they were willing to take in those refugees. However, if you see how many refugees the Netherlands takes in compared to Poland, Moldova and all those other countries that are actually not financially capable of doing so, well, we don't do too much. So, you can also look at it the other way around and I agree with NLFG1_M4. You have to say: well, you have to, you have to wait and see, because we don't have the reputation of being very generous and very realistic in terms of receiving things. And if we then find ourselves in a situation where we need that reception, well, we'll just have to wait and see how it goes. While the principle should be that everyone should receive refugees according to their means, in practice, as we are already seeing, the Netherlands does not do that.

M: And from an economic perspective, is there a difference between countries?

NLFG1_M3: Is it about the reception of?

M: No, that, that is still about the economic crisis.

NLFG1_M4: I think that's true; you can't expect Malta to contribute the same as Germany. But you can expect the same in terms of carrying capacity.

NLFG1_F2: They are doing what they can.

NLFG1_F1: Yes, yes, with the appropriate resources that they have at that time. If it is available. Yes, I agree.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, look, the problem is that if the Netherlands gets into trouble, then a lot of other countries get into trouble too. That's the annoying thing about the question. It is not because we are an open economy, that we have a certain large industry, which, for example, was the case in England. That the entire coal industry or mines fall away and as a result, there is a gigantic crisis in the country. We don't have that, because we don't have those industries, so we are purely dependent on trade and industry. And well, if we get into trouble, then our surrounding countries are also in trouble. But we are dependent on them. So, then that's a big-

(short pause)

NLFG1_M3: -if there is a problem in the Netherlands, it is a big global problem.

M: Do you agree?

[NLFG1_M3 was talking by the way]

M: Okay, so if your country received financial support, if the Netherlands received financial support from other countries, do we have to abide by any restrictions or rules that come with that?

NLFG1_M5: Theoretically, of course. Whether it actually happens.

(long pause)

NLFG1_M5: Well, I think the Netherlands does tend to stick to the rules.

NLFG1_F1: Yes, I do agree with that. I think we are always very docile when it comes to what is imposed on us, which we often do, so to speak, and I also think, yes, that eh yes. Yes, we do.

NLFG1_M5: We do get very angry when other countries don't do it!

NLFG1_F1: Yes, the citizens I think mainly, yes.

NLFG1_F2: Eh-

NLFG1_M3: -If we get financial aid, then we have to fulfil the conditions that were set before we got the aid. We do that for others, but that applies to us as well.

NLFG1_F2: -Yes, they should arrange that in The Hague, I think. [Group agrees.] Yes, I do not think that we as individuals can contribute to that, but we can do it from The Hague.

NLFG1_M3: So, I guess it's no different than when we got the Marshall Aid after the war. There was also a condition for that. That was often not told. But look, if you look at the papers that have been written about it, we actually kept wages very low until 1970, because we had a negative gross national product. It took about 25 years for us to get that back to a good level and to pay off the debts. Well, then wages went up. And well the effect of that was known pretty quickly.

(short pause)

NLFG1_M3: Well, then we had to make some tough budget cuts because that lasted until the early 1980s. Well, we still suffer from that every now and then. So, in that sense, if you look at the question of yes, I think, if you get financial aid, then you have to meet the conditions.

M: Okay then, are there any final comments on this scenario?

(long pause)

M: Okay, then I'll move on to the next scenario. That's about social inequality. Consider that here there are inequalities between countries and between people within a country. Should the EU have a common programme or fund to decrease societal inequalities, for example, given the increasing income gap in societies? And why? Or why not?

NLFG1_F1: I think that that just doesn't work. There are so many people who are so different. And when it comes to income and suchlike, yes, I, no, I don't think we should draw one straight line.

NLFG1_M4: I think the EU already does it to a certain extent. Disadvantaged areas just get money, including Dutch areas sometimes, and I think that's good. Because you see, you can never eliminate all inequality, I completely agree with NLFG1_F1 on that. However, at the same time, if there are areas that are very poor, that is also very negative for us, because that just costs money. If other countries cannot keep up, they will never be able to contribute as much. So, if we help each other a little, yes, we will all make progress. So, in that sense, I think it is good to try and work on that.

NLFG1_M5: Yes, that can be arranged centrally.

NLFG1_M4: Yes, not everything, but at least you make an effort for it.

NLFG1_M3: I agree with NLFG1_M4. For years the EU has been subsidising economic activity in areas, also in the Netherlands, where we have a lot of subsidies with which we can start things and areas can be fixed up and rural projects. What the province does, and that's all with EU money. We even got to refurbish a mill in our municipality for example, from which at least a part was covered by a European subsidy. But that is different from income policies. Income policies are done via the social eh...-

(short pause)

NLFG1_M3: -…the social chapter, and they are working on it in Europe. But a lot of countries are reluctant to, for example, extend maternity leave for women, or even that men can get maternity leave too. So, that all plays a part. People are working hard in that area. But if you look at the actual incomes, they say: yes, that's up to the local authorities. You can say that just like in the Netherlands, in fact, incomes are strongly levelled. However, in the Netherlands, as in several European countries, there is a strong inequality in wealth. So, people with assets generate a lot of income from these assets, which are not taxed. This results in gigantic inequality in the countries and in the EU as a whole, and it is being looked at in order to see whether something should be done about this with tax reforms in a European context. That's how it has in fact been agreed upon globally that the multinationals should simply pay 50% of their profits to the governments at a standard rate because now they do that very little. It's the same as with Apple or another big Tech company paying next to nothing, for which was also said: actually, we think that globally. And from the EU, this has been initiated, and there is a big consensus about that, to actually agree with each other and to implement that. But the pure income policy of how much taxes and premiums you're going to pay as an employee in a country, that's not in the hands of the EU, that's global. No, I mean, that's different for each country.

(long pause)

M: Okay, and if we specify it to unemployment, should the EU have a European-wide scheme to deal with unemployment in all countries, funded by all EU member states?

(long pause)

[00:39:51]

NLFG1_M4: Yes, I think... I don't think it's such a crazy idea up to a certain point, because in fact, it's already happening. You see, in Eastern European countries, unemployment is relatively high, so people come here. And we would like to have them here too because their wages are low. So, we can use those people for the lowest possible cost. If you prevent that from happening to some extent, then you also prevent this imbalance from growing. Then the Dutch truck driver will not be out-competed as much as he is now. I think that, in that sense, it can be quite positive if you do have a common market that you also work on together.

NLFG1_F1: I think that each country should work on its unemployment in its own way. I think that in our country, the unemployed who have become unemployed not because of medical reasons or whatever, but who are really just in the WW, are unemployed because they do not want to work for less than a certain amount. I think they should take stronger measures against this, and I think there should be sanctions against this because other people do work really hard for their money, and we have to pay for these people to sit at home again. But if you, I think that, yes, I actually think that the Netherlands itself could do more about it. I think that if you do that in itself, all the way across Europe and so on, that the division still remains. Because of course, it is much cheaper to let people from Poland or wherever come to the Netherlands because they work for the minimum wage. A Dutchman doesn't want to work for the minimum wage.

NLFG1_M5: Well, working for the minimum wage, they get paid less than we do here for the same work, but in their eyes it's a nice amount. The funny thing is that Poles come to the Netherlands a lot and then there is a lack of labour there. And that shortage is then filled by Romanians and Bulgarians and in itself, that is not so strange at all, not such a crazy interaction because everyone only gets richer from it, I would say.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, that is indeed correct, eh, what I said at one point: gosh, this unemployment benefit should be regulated at the European level by now. Well, I'm not sure about that, but what is true is that here, in the province of Friesland, with the construction of several aqueducts, Bulgarians were hired, and they were grossly underpaid. This was a Dutch contractor who brought in foreigners, and he did not pay the Dutch wage for several categories less because these people were simply recruited, while the Dutch were paid the normal wage. The EU has also stated that this is a thing of the past. So even if you hire Bulgarians, say, to transport your resources in trucks, those Bulgarians, because it is also an EU country, have the right to the same wages in the Netherlands as a Dutchman. Well, that is also, I think, right that this should take place, but it has NOT been like that for years. But it has to be now. And yes, if you say, 'that's it' or 'you're going to get benefits in the Netherlands', then you need to have worked for quite a long time before you get these unemployment benefits, and these benefits are getting shorter and shorter. Yes, that is different for each country, to say: well, you have worked for six months, and you are allowed to, but you are also entitled to six months of WW benefit because that is what we decided in the EU at the time. That it will be 90%, 80%, 70% or 60% of your last earned pay. Well, I think that would be very global, yes, but I don't know if that works and if that should be desirable.

(long pause)

M: Okay, so if there is high unemployment in a particular country, should the EU try to reduce it?

NLFG1_F1: Yes, I think we should all support each other a bit. If in a certain country there is high unemployment and in other countries, there is a shortage of personnel, then I really do think that we can support each other in that. Yes, I'm certainly positive about that.

NLFG1_M4: Agreed [everyone agrees].

NLFG1_M3: Yes, and if you look, for example, at Poland, where there are still many coal-fired power stations for which they say: for environmental reasons, all those coal mines must close because we don't want to burn coal anymore. Yes, then an alternative must be offered, just as in Gdańsk in Poland, where there was a large port where ships were built. The EU has already offered all kinds of alternatives, and that city has now developed other industries and other jobs, but with the help of the EU. Well, then you come up with programmes because this has also taken place in England. But there are also programmes in the Netherlands, for example in the Achterhoek, Eindhoven and all those other things, or in the Randstad and I think it's a very good thing that this is happening. Because if you don't, then yes, at some point you will have really disadvantaged areas and it will stay that way, while there is enough money in Europe to do something about it. Yes, then you are not doing something right.

(short pause)

M: Should the Netherlands contribute to reducing unemployment in another EU country even if this would imply additional costs for the Netherlands?

(long pause)

NLFG1_F2: I do think that the Netherlands should contribute, but only if ALL the European Union countries are cooperating in this, then we should do so too. However, if it should cost us extra, then it should cost ALL of us. It should not be that the Netherlands as the only country, should think that it should lead the way in this.

NLFG1_M4: I don't think it would work that way in practice because if a country is going through an economic downturn, eventually that country will contribute less to the European Union, and we will therefore pay more. Because the amount must be raised, so yes, you'd better help countries get back on their feet a bit, otherwise, it will cost you extra money anyway. Then we'd better do something about it anyhow.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, that's right. You pay those advances and contributions and at a certain point, a year or a year and a half later, a final account is drawn up for that one year. And if it turns out that a certain country just can't pay on a precautionary basis, simply because of economic headwinds, then that contribution is adjusted downwards, which means that the other countries have to pay more.

NLFG1_M4: So, do something about it anyway.

NLFG1_M3: So, left or right we still pay. That's how it is, that's how the system is built, that safety valve is always there.

NLFG1_M5: The magic word is solidarity.

NLFG1_F2: Yes, that solidarity, based on that solidarity. So, at some point you have to do that, otherwise, you won’t maintain such a big alliance, do you?

M: Okay. So, are there any additional comments you would like to make?

NLFG1_M4: I think in the Netherlands we underestimate how negative our financial image is abroad, in the other EU countries. I think we have the feeling that we do the most by far and I think that if you ask in Italy or in Greece or in Spain, they really look at you like [draws a strange face].

(short pause)

NLFG1_F2: Netherlands? [in reply to NLFG1_M4]

NLFG1_M4: Netherlands? PLEASE.

NLFG1_F1: But I still think that that is also because we are a relatively small country, we do not have a big population of course. In Italy, of course, you have three times as much population as in the Netherlands. So, then I think it is logical that we do not have to finance the same as a very large country actually.

NLFG1_M4: But we are not a relatively small country in the EU. We are a relatively large country.

NLFG1_M4: Financially speaking.

NLFG1_M3: No, we are, indeed, I agree with you we are. If you look years back, the Netherlands belonged to the biggest ten economies. We even used to be at place eight, then we dropped to place thirteen/fourteen but as Rutte said a few years ago: I'm a happy man because if we look at the GNP, and the economies in the world, the Netherlands is in the top ten and we're at place number seven or six. That is how rich we are.

NLFG1_M4: But also, in terms of population, we are in the upper half of the EU. There are many countries that are much smaller than us. And this feeling is there because we call ourselves a small frog country. But we are not. In terms of inhabitants, we really are in the top half and in terms of economy, we most definitely are.

NLFG1_M3: But look, because we are so strict in doctrine and always want to teach a lesson to such countries as France, Italy and Spain and Greece, about how they live on credit and we don't, and therefore we pay that credit up to a certain extent, which is not quite true. Yes, then of course those people are completely, utterly stressed by that. So, we have a very negative image: we present ourselves to be the pastor, but in the meantime, we are just the merchant. And if we can earn a few cents, we're going to do it. And that double standard that the Netherlands has had for years, well, there in the south of Europe they have great difficulty with that.

(short pause)

NLFG1_M5: And surely no one would like Italy to become like the Netherlands?

NLFG1_M4: No.

NLFG1_M5: Then we'll just fall away as a holiday destination.

M: How do you mean?

[00:50:00]

NLFG1_M5: The way of life there, is different from here.

(short pause)

NLFG1_M5: And they are getting older than us too.

NLFG1_M3: No, I mean at some point, each country has its own culture and other things, and you must leave that as it is. Yes, thinking from a Dutch point of view, you should take a little more into account that people in Italy, in the South, have a slightly different attitude to things than we do and that's just a fait accompli because it was like that years ago and if you look at history and that's the way it is because it will remain like that. That's part of the common market that you say: well, you must respect each other. And if we really were very poor because they are really living on credit and using up our money, as the feeling here is, but in practice, it is of course not so bad.

M: Okay, then I'll close the scenario. Today we discussed about the EU, touching upon different areas, like social disparities and economics. Are there any other areas that you think are relevant when talking about relations and mutual support within the EU?

NLFG1_M3: Yes, I think for me it's refugee issues, especially from refugees who are not from Europe. That is a big stumbling block. The EU has been discussing this for about six or seven years, but no coherent solution has been found, and meanwhile, a lot of Syrians are dying in Turkey and other people in Italy and Greece. And then we see that the Netherlands also does not play a role in this, yes, the role of wishing that those people should stay there and especially should not come to us. Well, in good conscience, we can't completely hide from Ukraine, but that's where Europe drops the ball. (short pause) And the Netherlands for sure.

M: NLFG1_M4, do you agree?

NLFG1_M4: Yes, I think the way we deal with migration in Europe is just, is very much based on letting as few people in as possible. My refugee centre in the region is just full. Then I think for me, migration is a black mark on the EU.

(long pause)

NLFG1_M3: Yes, if you look at the demographics, for example, a country like Germany and also Italy and France, they are declining in absolute numbers, they are declining in population. The same as in China and Russia, where in the past ten years, in Russia too, so many million people have gone, simply by natural progression, compared to a number of years before that. Then you look at the Netherlands, where there is only growth, so it is also becoming more and more full here, so at a certain point, you can say: yes, the Netherlands is full and all those things more. But that, yes, that is a problem. And I would say: if we were so poor that we couldn't afford it, but that's not the case, that's not the question. That is where we still have a challenge for our country.

(long pause)

M: No other topics we haven't discussed?

NLFG1_M4: Not within the EU.

M: Inside the EU or outside the EU, as long as it is related to the EU.

NLFG1_M4: For me, the EU's accession policy is really a big issue. Now I happened to pay a lot of attention to it in my history studies that we have a number of countries in the waiting rooms: North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia and Kosovo. Well, now Ukraine and Moldova too, Turkey. And we are completely unreliable in that regard. We have demanded from, for example, North Macedonia, about which I know the most, that they change their name, change their flag, change the name of their people, change everything. And they get nothing in return, there is no perspective. Nothing comes. But the effect of that is that 20 years ago, when the first promise came; you can join, the support for Europe was, really was 100 per cent and that is now coming to an end. And you're now at a tipping point where that support is only 50 per cent, not even yet. That's just because of broken promises from Europe. Those countries are trying to move forward, but Europe is simply not on board and, as usual, the Netherlands is in the vanguard to prevent that from happening, along with France. But that does lead to these countries being driven into the hands of other countries. Russia, Turkey, yes, a country like Albania is more oriented towards Turkey because of its religion. But you do have that effect, it's just because we as the European Union are not reliable. We just don't want to give those countries the chance, while yes, the impact of a country with two million inhabitants on the finances. I don't believe that with the 500 million people we already have, it will hurt us much. However, it does do something to our image, and it really hurts me to see how incredibly EMBARRASSING we are dealing with it. [a lot of emotion]

M: How do you see the future of the Netherlands in the EU, considering the topics we discussed?

(long pause)

NLFG1_M3: Yes, well, in that sense I look at it positively. When I read in the paper about how this cabinet now views the role of the Netherlands in Europe, I figured that we were actually anti-European in the Rutte cabinets. For as long as it only brought in money, of course, we were positive then. Rutte often said something very different in the Lower House than when he was sitting at the table in Brussels with his European counterparts because then we just went along. In that sense we're used to it, we just go along with the whole story. And now that is in fact also indicated by this cabinet, that the Netherlands is in fact already incorporated in Europe in large quantities and that we just go along with it because we also are, yes, we are also completely dependent. So, if we were to go for a Nexit scenario, well, the whole country would collapse. I don't think we're going to do that, and I think the spirits are wise that we stay in Europe. (short pause) And it is, therefore, good that this government actually expresses this at once, and then also conveys this to its outer guards, to its inhabitants.

NLFG1_F2: And will do it, too.

NLFG1_M4: I think that's important, that the Netherlands dares to be honest about the benefits. I understand that it's politically convenient to say that all the rules come from Brussels. But yes, our government also agrees to those rules in Brussels, otherwise, they wouldn't be there. So always whining about that just leads to a negative image of the EU. I don't know anyone who would like to see the border with Germany closed. Yes, that is one effect of the EU, that it is now open. I think that we should be more honest in the Netherlands about what we gained from it and stop pretending that it's always the fault of others, but that we agreed to it ourselves.

M: And the others? What do you think?

NLFG1_M5: Would that mean that more power would be allowed to go to Brussels?

NLFG1_M4: Yes, you have my blessings.

NLFG1_M5: Yes, yes, I think so too.

NLFG1_M3: I think that's been going on for years and years, and it just goes on. And whether that's a negative thing, well, that's debatable. We actually want a European Foreign Minister. Well, we now have these Commissioners who, well, they come, and they don't actually have that much to say. We may be an economic powerhouse, but on a global scale, with regard to other points, yes, we are actually a giant on shaky feet and it will be good to see that change. This means that more power will indeed go to Brussels. But we have become so dependent on each other that we can also say to each other if we don't want something, or only to a certain extent, or if we want to go back. Well, I don't think the last one is in anyone's interest.

M: And NLFG1_F2 or NLFG1_F1, what do you think?

NLFG1_F1: No, I actually agree with NLFG1_M3 on that.

NLFG1_F2: Yes, it is what I just said: yes, but they have to do it. They should not just say it.

M: Yes, and who should not just say it?

NLFG1_F2: Well, from The Hague. They say one thing to us here and then do another thing in Brussels. That.

[01:00:08]

M: Because what is happening now is positive or negative?

NLFG1_M4: In Brussels or in The Hague?

M: Both, in The Hague or in Brussels. Or the connection between Brussels and The Hague?

NLFG1_M3: Well I think, yes, in itself it is positive. Only to the outside world, to the population, people often say, like NLFG1_M4 said: ah Brussels, big bad wolf and well, everything that doesn't suit us it's Brussels' fault. While we ourselves have all agreed to it via a different line. So, then just say no, this is from Brussels and that is good because we have also agreed to it. We have debated it and we have also made our, we have made agreements and that goes through the Senate and the Lower House and the Senate, it is ratified and then it becomes a law. What you see is that with a lot of things, which are very normal, that in the Netherlands only until the very, sometimes very last moment, it is suggested that we want it. This is because all the time we have said here to our people: ‘Yes, we don't want that, just let Europe talk. What those people are saying is hooey, we will manage with our own legislation.’ We are actually doing the same what Orbán is doing and because of that, it would be much better to just say, we will just pull through. What it does mean is that when something is discussed in Brussels, it should be known that it will be incorporated into legislation in all countries, including the Netherlands, through the regular channels. And now you very often have people saying: ‘Oh Europe, how dreadful.’ Well, here we go again. So, a very negative image is created among the population towards Europe by our government, while that is not necessary because the government itself has also agreed to it. It would be good if this contradiction could be removed and if people could just be positive. Provinces are much more positive because they are going to Brussels, and they lobby. They bring in money and the municipalities also already have an office in Brussels. In all countries, local authorities can already do business directly in Brussels for their rural regions in order to keep money coming in because sometimes it takes far too long via the governments. Well, just be open and transparent in this, because then you also get extra credit from the population. You can say, well, if a municipality or whatever can get something from Europe, from Brussels, well then, it will have a positive effect. But the Netherlands is often very ambivalent about this.

M: Did you want to say something to that?

NLFG1_F1: No, no, no. If I look at myself, you know, I think actually I'm not at all negative about that, no. But I am also maybe not so much into it as NLFG1_M3. So, I, then no.

M: Okay, any last comments? No then- -yes? Sorry!

NLFG1_M5: I think that the European Parliament should meet in one place from now on and not go every time Strasbourg, Brussels, Strasbourg. That only costs money. But anyway, then France will probably be out.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, it is quite a big deal.

M: Okay, then I would like to ask if everyone would like to make a final remark on this topic. That is, what we have talked about today.

NLFG1_M5: I just did.

NLFG1_M4: I am happy that we are in Europe. I would hope that the government would express that a bit more, but I also hope that our values of solidarity, which we want to express, would be expressed a bit more to countries that want to join. In my opinion, that is the only way to actually achieve good European cooperation. Apart from that, I am very happy with it, although they should reform the agricultural subsidies at some point.

NLFG1_F1: I am also very pleased that we are in the EU. I think it brings us much further as a country than if we were not in it.

NLFG1_F2: I am also pleased that we are in the European Union. But I do think that some things can be arranged a bit more efficiently and better. Also, when it is arranged over there, it comes back to our country.

NLFG1_M3: Yes, I feel European. It would be nice if the one-sided economic approach that we have come from would be focused less on, and that we would look more at what standards and values we in Europe would like to share. It is now, after all, very one-sidedly, always focused on economic activities.

M: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anything else that we should have discussed during the discussion, that you had in mind, but that we didn't ask about?

NLFG1_M3: One issue is the border between Northern Ireland and Ulster. Agreements have been made about that in the context of Brexit so that trade is in fact well maintained, but especially to keep the old sentiments between the Protestants and Catholics, yes, to keep them in good order. So, you would say that people are saying: ‘Gosh, that border, hey, that's a European border.’ But that will be the old border as it was before the Good Friday Agreements. Now you notice that this is starting to bubble up again and, so to speak, the warmongers within both camps see their chance to breathe new life into those old sentiments. And that's something, for which at the moment Boris Johnson says, yes, those agreements, what we discussed in the context of Brexit, that's not possible anymore, that has to change. Well, that in itself is a somewhat dangerous development. I am very curious to see how this will develop in the future.

NLFG1_M5: And that even led to the Irish nationalists getting the majority for the first time. It is a- being worked on. No, it's well known that the youth of Northern Ireland is nowhere near as pro-British, British as the older generation, and they would rather have one island where they can just live peacefully. Yes, they have, you can see that in the election results. Yes, this is clearly being worked on. So, this problem will solve itself, I think.

NLFG1_M3: Well, it is to be hoped, but at some point, Ulster is, of course, exit. Well, Ireland is still in the EU, so it's very, very exciting to see how that will develop. It would be nice that indeed, the new generation indicates that they want to say goodbye to those sentiments of the past and Ulster will just be another part of Ireland like it used to be. But then some water will have to pass through the Thames I think before all that is realised.

NLFG1_M5: No, through the Liffey. [laughter]

M: Okay then we close the discussion. Thank you very much!

NLFG1_M3: You're welcome.

NLFG1_F2: Yes.

NLFG1_F1: Yes.