M: So, hmm (short pause) now at this early stage I would only ask you to write down the first three thoughts on a sheet of paper or on the computer, for example, the ideas that come to mind when you hear the expression “European Union” or “EU”. It's three thoughts, but it could be two, it could be a two, it could be one if you don’t have three. No problem.

(long pause)

M: I'll ask each and every one of you, hmm what you have written down. If we're all ready, maybe we could go through the zoom windows. I'll start with PTFG1_F7.

PTFG1_F7: Hello. So, my first thoughts were: the flag itself. Blue with the little stars. Security, that was the second. And the third was stability.

M: Okay, and what do you mean by stability and security? Briefly

PTFG1_F7: On the one hand, security. I think we in Europe have security conditions that do not exist on other continents. Hmm we're in a privileged situation. With regard to stability, it’s somewhat associated with this issue of security. Here we have opportunities, or we have laws that regulate access to opportunities. (short pause) And most of us, or those looking for these opportunities, end up getting some and then get their stability.

M: Okay, thank you PTFG1_F7. PTFG1_M2.

PTFG1_M2: Good night, everyone. Hmm I wrote down “aid between countries” and, uh, “single currency”, of course. And “community”, Do not know if its “community”, all right, ok, I wrote down “community”. I don't know what I mean by that. Instead of being one country, hmmm (short pause) we are a set of hmm countries that basically form one entity. It's not like that, but basically that's what it was meant to be.

M: And “aid between countries”, what do you mean by that?

PTFG1_M2: I don't know, I think (short pause) if some countries are falling, others help them not to fall. There's not going to be a hole in the middle, is there? (short pause) we have a piece of this size and we will not let there be a hole in the middle, theoretically.

M: Ok, thanks PTFG1_M2. PTFG1_M4, please. (short pause) Your microphone's off.

PTFG1_M4: Well, I. Three points. There's too many of them. One of them is freedom of movement - the Schengen area. The other is the single currency, which has advantages and drawbacks. The third is the structural funds (short pause) related to the difficulty of debt that is always growing. The structural funds are very nice, but they are causing our debt to increase and at the moment it is one of the largest in Europe. And those are the three points.

M: Okay, thank you very much PTFG1_M4. PTFG1_M4 (short pause) was more concrete. Hmm and now I give the floor to PTFG1_F1.

PTFG1_F1: Good night, everyone. Me too, being very concrete: three words. The first Euro, referring to the currency. The second free movement, both of people and goods. And the third, which curiously, perhaps, no one has remembered, immigration. I think it's a word that's extremely associated, I could have also written down refugees, but I've written immigration. And that's it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. PTFG1_F3, please.

PTFG1_F3: Well, I written down the idea of equality, but as a dream of equality and justice. Equality in the sense of equality and justice. Wealth, related to standard of living. And Eurocentrism.

M: Okay, and can you develop this idea of equality, briefly.

PTFG1_F3: Because (short pause) hmmm maybe (long pause), I don’t know if it is equality in the union between the countries of the European Union or if it is equality within countries. (short pause) Equality not, not related so much to the economic issue, but related to quality of life, regardless of the economic issue. I think (short pause) that’s it.

M: Okay, PTFG1_F3. Thank you. Now I give the floor to PTFG1_F6.

PTFG1_F6: Will my words repeat with what has already been said? One of them is ( ). I put without borders, but then I deleted and put borders ( ).

M: PTFG1_F6, I'm sorry what were the words again?

PTFG1_F6: Single currency…

M: Democracy?

PTFG1_F6: Democracy and borders.

M: Okay, hmm, one thing that I will ask you to do is if you could use hmm, like headphones or something.

PTFG1_F6: I don't have any here.

M: Ok, so I'll probably ask you later during the session to repeat some ideas, as your sound has some flaws-.

PTFG1_M4: -You have to get closer to the microphone

PTFG1_F6: It must be from my internet connection, ( ) is very unstable.

M: Okay, so I'm going to take that into account and I'm likely to ask you to clarify somethings later. Thank you, PTFG1_F6. Now I’ll give the floor to PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: Hello, good night everyone. Hmm, M already knows me, I talk a lot, but I'll try to condense a little. I'm sorry if I talk too much. Okay, the three words - I started by talking about Europe, because I think there is often confusion in the political debate between what the European Union is and what Europe is. They're different things. Hmm the European Union is a set of countries that allow free movement, etc., etc. Everything we know. But it's different from Europe. Europe is a continent that has many more countries that are not in the European Union, which has agreements or has no agreements, etc. So sometimes the confusion-. And even there is confusion with the single currency and the European economic community, etc.- they are different things, and this confusion takes place at the political level, and I think it is important to make this distinction. After next word I remembered was also immigration, I think someone referred to it. I think it's a word that is on the agenda, hmm (short pause) immigration we have mainly seen it WITHIN Europe. Hmm there is a kind of social dumping, that is, we have seen mainly from the countries of the periphery, people from the periphery emigrate to the center and those who come from other continents go to the periphery or to the center. So, we have seen this as a kind of regulation of the labor market and then xenophobia comes after that and we never have a clear response to the problem of immigration, which should not be a problem.

[00:10:24]

Finally, human rights. I think the European Union in particular, we can think of Europe as a whole, but I think the European Union has gone further than probably the whole of countries in the continent - the aggregate - that managed to go further, especially after the Second World War regarding human rights, labor rights, etc., now we have some setbacks unfortunately, in some countries. But I would highlight these words: Europe, immigration, and human rights.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Hmm then we can move on to the next phase of our discussion. And I will ask here a reasonably open question, and it is something like this: How would you describe, or characterize your position, or attitude, or feeling towards the European Union and if you could elaborate a little, it would also be interesting. I don't know if any of you want to go ahead. We can follow the - okay, PTFG1_F7, go ahead.

PTFG1_F7: I think this question for me is not difficult to answer. I like being a European citizen. I like to belong to the European Union. (short pause) Hmm goes with what I have said earlier regarding security and stability conditions. I feel that here, fortunately, I don't have to be afraid to go out on the street. What happens here - I have not been to so many countries in the European Union either, of course there is crime, and many other things, but it is not a threatening place compared with other regions. At least that's the perception I have. And so, I like the work that is being done over time hmm in building our rights, as PTFG1_M4 pointed out and also the way UNITED [gestures with her hands towards each other] we are working on joint practices for our countries.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. Anyone else want to answer the question?

PTFG1_F1: Hmm, you can go ahead, PTFG1_M4, if you want to go first.

PTFG1_M4: European Union? As you can see, I was born before the European Union [laughs]. The European Union for Portugal was a solution that we had when we lost a sixth of Africa, Portugal was one of the world's powers, and we lost it. We lost it as England lost and or other countries lost. Mainly due to issues that have nothing to do with Africa. In particular, issues between the power of America and Russia. So, we lost out there. Our whole losing Africa problem is due to Kennedy. Therefore, Portugal was at the end of a cul-de-sac, and it was either totally isolated, alone, or had to enter the European Union.

At the time, we had advantages and drawbacks. The drawbacks are that we lived with a very strong currency: the Escudo against the dollar, many years ago, was worth 30 Escudos. Then when we lost Africa, the Escudo started to fall - it fell vertically - and we had to really make the leap to the single currency because otherwise we couldn't keep up. Devaluation did not solve anything for us, and we had to really enter the European Union. Where we are the poor relative, and we are becoming poorer in the European Union. Behind us, we only have Bulgaria. Romania has already passed us, which was a very complicated country - and even today it must be, I was mugged by a policeman in Romania. So, Romania in Bucharest was dangerous - today I don't know how it is. The TEMPUS program - I didn't come back. So, the security in Romania was bad.

In Portugal, security is getting worse, it's been better. And as for the advantages: we are living at the expense of European funds. We have a good network of motorways that is due to European funds and at the moment we are practically not developing. What's this going to mean for the future? It's going to be complicated, not because of us. But because of the Nordic countries that are beginning to see us with suspicion because the Portuguese mismanage the structural funds. We manage very poorly, and now with the structural fund - the most powerful, I fear it will be a very complicated problem in the way we manage it. Because if they notice, the railways - they were thinking about them - have all been postponed. Airports are being delayed. And the areas, one by one, of the resilience fund, we will see that in a short time all of them will slip - which I fear in the future will be bad for us.

A great advantage that the European Union has given us, especially for young people, has been the opportunity to have jobs and to earn decently. Because a doctor earning €800 or €900 like we have is no use. It's a total degradation. In Germany people earn well. In France, relatively well. In Ireland it's a wonder. Britain disappeared from the European Union, which was bad for us. There are countries where it was very good like Sweden, but at the moment Sweden is complicated and also without security. Security in Sweden has disappeared, mainly due to Arab immigrants-.

M: I just want to raise one question - not meaning to interrupt - I just want to appeal to the sense of synthesis. We have 90 minutes, and we still have a lot to discuss.

PTFG1_M4: Fundamentally what I mean is that the European Union has been a good for us, but that we are not knowing how to conserve it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. PTFG1_M4 introduces here some issues that I would like to bring up, which is this issue of benefits and disadvantages, and whether you consider that joining the EU has brought benefits or disadvantages. If you want to develop that idea later, you're welcome. I don't know if anyone else wants to speak - The idea is for everyone to participate. Okay, PTFG1_F1.

PTFG1_F1: I just wanted to talk, it's fast. We also have to shorten our interventions a little more, if we want everyone to have the opportunity to speak. Okay, here's the thing. In a way and answering both questions: advantages and disadvantages. No doubt I follow what PTFG1_F7 has said, security and stability and the fact that we have a single currency, I think it brings many advantages.

Um, looking at the less positive aspects, I think this issue of the funds that PTFG1_M4 talked about is true. But that already brings other issues to the debate, which are more political and about MONITORIZATION {means monitoring} of the funds, which I think is a bit of a failure. We have received a lot of money from the European Union, which could be very well spent, but it is not. And if it isn´t, it is because there is a little monitorization. I think that in the European Union, if we want to be stronger, there also has to be a tighter sanctions for these countries that do not comply. Because the truth is, we often don't know where the money goes. It's not going to education; it's not going to healthcare. It goes into someone's pockets, doesn’t it? That's a little bit the point.

So, I no doubt think, if you ask me, of course I prefer to be in the European Union and I think it brings many advantages mainly for young people, as PTFG1_M4 said. Hmm, but obviously this issue of the European funds and the money has to be well managed because if it isn’t we are going to have problems. But generally speaking, no doubt I think we have, almost everyone who is here, that we should be and that was undoubtedly a great victory for us and for Europe. And the case of England, I think we definitely have to lost and so have they. And that's it, M. In a nutshell.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. PTFG1_F1 has brought here some issues that we will discuss later. So, we had PTFG1_F3 who wants to talk, and if I'm not mistaken, PTFG1_M4 also wants to speak. Okay, so I give the floor to PTFG1_F3.

[00:19:37]

PTFG1_F3: So, I think hmm, I feel, I feel (short pause), Europe today is a Europe of many paradoxes. When it comes to human rights, ok, policies are super progressive, but when, um, what we see is a degradation and a progressive loss of rights. Labour rights, housing rights-. I moved here 20 years ago, it's a situation- It's brutal hmm, the precariousness, the precarious system that we've been entering, both job precariousness and housing precariousness. Hmm so it's a discourse that's not coherent.

On the one hand you take the discourse, at least from the housing laws here, or the discourse of a cohesive European Union, and jobs for all and you see the uberization of work, isn't it? So, I think (short pause), that there are issues that if the European Union does not treat in a unique way, hmm ready all this can go. The greater the job insecurity, the greater the insecurity. (long pause) I see that a little bit. The discourse is not in the same as the reality. If we (short pause) want to have good public policies, social policies that guarantee a state of social welfare, but without facing the regulation of economic capital - There is no such thing. I don't know, i don't know, It doesn't fit. It's dysphoric. I don't know, I can't explain it.

M: I think you've explained your position quite well, PTFG1_F3. Thank you. I now give the floor PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: Thank you. I hmm was going to start precisely with what PTFG1_F3 said, and I totally agree. Before we ask whether or not we want to be in the European Union, we also have to ask what European Union we want. Because I can say that I want to be in the European Union, and I do, but this is not the European Union I want. Because, labor rights, as PTFG1_F3 said, are falling. Even human rights, we are beginning to see the most basic ones being threatened in several countries of the European Union. So, we have to start asking what European Union, in substance [makes ball-shaped gesture with his hand], is what we want, don't we?

I think in fact it is clear that we have to. It is reasonably one of the areas of the globe where there is greater security, free movement, now, first we do not have-. There are several European bodies that are not popularly legitimized. That is, they are not elected. This causes a gap between citizens and representatives. Then we also have a little tied up, so to speak, to the fiscal pacts. Even treaties that the European Union has with other countries, CETA for example, with Canada. TTIP with the United States has very serious environmental problems and we too- (short pause) don't want too either." I don't see this discussion being done seriously.

Another thing that I also think is very serious that came with the European Union was the question of sovereignty. I think there needs to be a balance here (short pause). We relocated to Asia a large part of the production that was done locally. Not only to Asia, but also to the so-called Global South, isn't it?

And we instead of having agriculture-, agriculture or a number of other local productions - and that has had a very serious impact, both on labor rights and - it causes such social or environmental dumping. And then another question that I think is also very interesting, that I find peculiar in how it has worked, is that historically France and Germany have always been on different sides, but in the European Union they have been on the same side. And it's funny because France has had a very protectionist and securitarian policy when it comes to the economy and Germany has an export policy, and I think it's very funny, and it's a question that I leave to the discussion, because I really have no answer. How do [makes waving gestures] these two manage to cohabit because they are the two countries, let's say the axis of the European Union's (short pause). Okay, that was my first reflection on this. At least it was the issues I've been pointing out.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I don’t know if anyone else would like to add to the discussion-, PTFG1_F6 and PTFG1_M2 haven't talked yet.

PTFG1_M2: I can talk, nothing special, and I'm going to add something else. But hmm, they said, someone talked about inequality, it's like this: we-, this should be a united thing and we have-, our minimum wage is shameful in comparison with countries like Switzerland, or Luxembourg, or some other country, which makes there be very large imbalance here within a community, within something that should be united or one. Out there, I think, I mean, there is free movement, but we are much less likely to move as easily as people in other countries. There is free movement, but we cannot enjoy it like this. I don't know if it makes sense, but to enjoy this free movement because we don't have the capacity as they have for this free movement. Moreover, I agree more or less with everything that has been said. I also think that so much has been said, that I have not added much more, but here the inequality of, of salaries that is huge and that should not be in a community, right?

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. And PTFG1_F6, I think you are ready to speak too.

PTFG1_F6: You’ve already said a lot, but one thing I wanted to add is that I think it's all in the sphere of ideas, but there's little action. And there is little action, for example in relation to climate. One of Europe's concerns in the 1970s was the environment. And what has been done so far? Very little, it is, and it continues-, the goals for climate neutrality until 2050, that is, it is pushing this onto the next generations, the responsibility to deal with this problem, which is a problem that has existed for so long and has to be solved now. It was an issue that I wanted to add is this issue of ideas, but that there is little action, little practical work of really-, CONCRETE MEASURES to mitigate this problem. Not only the environment, but also social issues.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. Okay, we should move on to the next phase of the discussion. But I will just give the floor to PTFG1_F7 and to PTFG1_M4, but it has to be very fast, very fast.

PTFG1_F7: Very quickly, hmm to follow up on what the colleague was saying: the great is enemy of the good. We are always looking for the ideal project, the ideal solution, perfect and with everything considered and with all hypotheses studied. The time that is lost in the design, is the time that one does not have to spend in the execution. And then we never go from idea to practice, or rarely do we and when we do it doesn't go as expected either.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I do not know if PTFG1_M4 had-. I appeal to your sense of brevity.

PTFG1_M4: Let's see, my question is about what PTFG1_M2 said, because the EEC has moved to the European Union by increasing its coverage of the Union, but a federation has not been created. We are in a union where countries still have their identity, in a federation they would not have. The reason why the minimum wages, productivity, and all, is still separate from country to country, and we can't forget that. Therefore, Luxembourg's minimum wage compared to Portugal's is incredibly different. As for the problems of the environment, we here in Portugal are stopping the coal plants and increasing prices. Spain is re-opening coal power plants. EDP {the main energy supplier in Portugal} is restarting a coal plant in Spain. So, the identity- the countries are not in a federation, it is a union in which there is still autonomy of the countries which brings as a consequence that we cannot, that is-, the European directives are being adapted by different countries, Portugal is always the last to adopt the European directives and so we are in the state in which we are. And that was it-.

M: Thank you very much, PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: There was only one small detail-.

M: Quick, very quick.

PTFG1_M4: Quickly, why did production move to Asia? Because the understanding, both of America and of European countries, is that blue-collar jobs, so the work of working-class individuals and such, is a secondary job and as such, Asia would do the most easily and we would get intellectual, white-collar work. That didn't actually work. Trump fought it, but he lost, and we're going to lose in the future that Asia is going to take us all out.

[00:30:24]

M: Very well. Let's move on to the next phase. Many of these issues that you have raised will be discussed in more depth in some of the scenarios that we have to show to you, and therefore here we move on to the first scenario. I'm going to put you on a speculative exercise and then we'll discuss it (short pause) with that perspective of the European Union and the role of countries, etc. So, imagine that there is a major natural disaster like an earthquake, like a gigantic fire, a flood, or something like that, but a natural disaster, in a country of the European Union, in another country of the European Union. How should the EU react in your opinion? How should the EU position itself and act on this scenario? Volunteers? Okay, PTFG1_F7. And once again I appealed to your ability of summation.

PTFG1_F7: I'm sorry, I think we should cooperate by giving part, not only of our few funds, affecting some financial resources, and also affecting some of our military component, some of our troops to help rebuild the territory. And maybe also send some idle manpower that we have, because we don't have places to affect them, and make them available to that country or that area to help them rebuild.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I don't know if-, PTFG1_M4, go ahead.

PTFG1_M4: Now, there is already one in Europe, a fire support center that sends planes to different countries. We the Portuguese are the ones that practically don’t collaborated in anything, except with a team of firefighters who take dogs to the earthquakes. Moreover, the fire support component, the Canadairs have come from Spain, has some even come from Italy, to help us. We already have a fire defense and it lousy, and it doesn't work, but there is European collaboration. It might be better, but unfortunately, it's not.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. PTFG1_M2 go ahead.

PTFG1_M2: I agree with PTFG1_F7. I think that in the event of a catastrophe, a big thing-, Portugal is faced by another earthquake, or another country, we can pick another country, hmm that there may be a great mobilization of means and money because we are a union-, to have a union between countries, without selfishness. Okay, as you saw a short time ago, so you can solve everything as soon as possible so that there's not-, once again some countries way below the rest, isn't it?

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. I just want to ask you a question here: many of you have talked-, you have introduced another dimension. The initial question was how the EU, as a broad organization, should react. But you have also begun to talk about the responsibilities or duties of the country, Portugal in this case. Therefore, they can also explore the issue through this way. How should your country react in a disaster situation IN OTHER countries of the European Union? Not only the European Union, but also of your country in particular. I don't know if PTFG1_F3's has signing up to speak?

PTFG1_F3: Yes. I think hmm, I don't know if the European Union has any predictions, or if it has an emergency disaster fund or a strategy. Because (short pause) each country will react- there is a lot of difference between the countries. As PTFG1_M4 has already pointed out, Portugal can help in a different way from Germany, can't it? Mainly- (short pause) so I do not know if we should not already have a plan of action, a strategic plan of action, prevention, of, action in case of catastrophe. I think it has to be thought of on a macro scale because countries don't have all the same resources. Because if that's the case, everyone helps with what they can.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. We have more registrations. PTFG1_M4, I don't know if anyone else signed up too- PTFG1_F1 and PTFG1_F6. Thus, I give the floor to PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: Okay, it's a little bit in the way of what's been said. I don't know if there's a common fund either. I think it is important to create one, and a support center for any kind of emergency support of that kind. I think you should act immediately. And each country contributes proportionally. But of course, that must be done.

In fact, I am even in favor - just a quick parenthesis, that this be done even worldwide. Even the question of free movement, I do not understand why only part of the world has to have free movement, but that is another discussion.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Then we move on to PTFG1_F1 and then PTFG1_F6 has the floor.

PTFG1_F1: So, it's a little bit what you've said already: financial resources, human resources, because we can help more in some ways than other ways. I don't know, according to what PTFG1_F3 and PTFG1_M4 said, if there's a fund, but if there isn't, there should be one. I assume there is-, there should be. At least it would make sense and also provide psychological support, because in these situations it is something that sometimes we talk little about, but people can really get mentally impacted, it is also an important support that can be provided.

And answering the question: of course, offer help, but with what we obviously have. If it was Portugal, of course, we couldn't offer much, but I think something-, or even welcoming people over a period of time could also be a possibility.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. I'll not give the floor to PTFG1_F6.

PTFG1_F6: I don't know if there's any formal background or anything set up for support in these situations. I think the European Union has at least a moral obligation to support in these situations. I think not only, too, I think it should not only be Europe, but also ( ). Support in areas where the country needs.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. So (short pause) and-, this was an issue that some of you have already mentioned: the question of proportionality. The question I asked you now is whether do you think that some countries in the European Union should do a little more than others in these circumstances of natural disaster? I don't know if you want to develop more, if (short pause) if you have something to add? (long pause) No? No one wants to develop?

PTFG1_F6: I think every country gives what it has, shouldn’t it? Certainly, in terms of financial resources Portugal is doesn’t have so much-, Portugal is not comfortable in this issue. There are other countries that are richer, aren't there? They can contribute with more financial support. But we have good human resources, for example. There are good technicians who work in crisis situations, psychologists, firefighters, and doctors who could be deployed to these situations, for example. We would certainly have other resources that we could dispense with. Each country can give what it can give, depending on the resources ( ).

[00:39:10]

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. Is PTFG1_M4 registered to speak too?

PTFG1_M4: Yes. It is very fast, just to say that, in fact, there must be such proportionality. Now, this proportionality has to be written. Because it is one thing for us to be saying here and with good intentions, it is another thing not to have that written and from the moment it is not written there can be countries, the ones that I was talking about just now that are beginning to have a very securitarian position, which will, shall we say, escape that community responsibility. And therefore, I think it should even be settled in which form this proportionality should be ensured, it should be done. And it must be updated according to developments, (short pause) the evolution of each country and with the power of each country is having, economic in particular.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. PTFG1_F7, please go ahead.

PTFG1_F7: Hmm following in the line of thought of the colleague, rather than being written, being written in advance. Because, if we have to waste the time reacting to each moment, hmm people, however-, some probably will die from the lack of resources and conditions, and the document is written and only then published officially and only then begin to act before it. So instead of being a reaction policy, be more of a planning policy and already be established and when there is a problem, it is triggered, as we have said before.

I also think that the issue of territory and proximity to the site is important. It’s useless to be crossing Europe with fire trucks days and days and days, when we probably have closer, closer countries that can meet these more emerging needs. Maybe then we can contribute with people, contribute hmm with the transfer of some goods, some financial resources, but to send the fire brigades so far, only if there are vehicles with great capacity, because we have to do the balancing act here: they are going, coming, going, going, this may not be justified and not fit and may not go in time.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I just wanted to put a brief question, but you can go back and talk about what we've already covered. If you feel individual responsibility in a situation-, or feel, because we are talking about a hypothetical scenario if you would feel individual responsibility to help within your means. I give PTFG1_M4 the floor.

PTFG1_M4: I think that until there is a European directive on this issue, we cannot do anything. Because European directives are then transferred to each of the countries. I am not aware that there is a European directive, either on defense or on these situations, and if there really is a directive in which countries, then adhering to that directive and establishing responsibilities between them-, then I can solve the problem. Otherwise, it depends on the goodwill of each country or each neighbor to protect the other. Because relations in the European Union are done through directives, and in this case I do not know.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Hmm, another issue that I wanted to introduce and that you have already mentioned, more or less, clues in this direction, is this issue of costs and who should cover the costs and who has responsibilities in this matter, and therefore I wanted to know if you have anything more to say about this issue of the costs and responsibilities of each, individual, both between countries and also in the European Union. You have already addressed these various levels of relationship. So, PTFG1_F7 has the floor and then PTFG1_M4 speaks.

PTFG1_F7: PTFG1_M4, you can go ahead.

PTFG1_M4: Okay, I'm going to be really fast, too. I think, um- I'm going to be extra careful when saying this, but I think there's a certain, um, a certain individual pressure, almost-, an individual culpability. I think in certain fields this can be a little dangerous, because we are attributing no responsibility to those who really have serious responsibilities in matters when we talk, for example, of the environment, it's not my fault I'm using paper. It's the fault of the big pollutants, for example- that is, what were you saying about M, whether it's natural disasters, what responsibility can I have in helping?

Of course, I can individually make a donation. Now I think this has to come from the centralized states, with organization, responsibly, we already pay taxes progressively, and therefore I think that putting the burden on the individual citizen is the state divesting itself of responsibility, that are not wanting to act. This we see in climate, as we see in other areas, in other hmm (short pause) similar situations. And so, I think it's a bit out there. It's bit of a thing- we think collectively in terms- not so individual.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Then I would give PTFG1_F7 the floor and then we'll move on to PTFG1_F3.

PTFG1_F7: Hmm (short pause) we have here the situation in which we are more of a welfare society and not a welfare state. Society usually moves faster in the desire to do something. What do I think fails here a lot? For example, a very basic question: food banks. Hmm there is much criticism of the food bank because effectively, despite the volunteers, despite the donations. (short pause) we have a person who wants to help - give a donation. We have someone who collects donations. What's going on? This is not well regulated. There is no good mechanism for making out, not only food contributions but volunteers. So, what happens? Often, in addition to people diverting resources, resources eventually degrade- and it is not only in economic policy, not only that it is very well regulated that we must work.

We have to work on social welfare, and we have to make sure that these responses, such as the food bank, are made and executed from start to finish. Because if we don’t, we’ll hearing about the corruption that's been behind social welfare for all our lives. And regulate and make agents work from start to finish, giving what we assign, as a donation, to the final destination. This has to have a continuous line from start to finish, otherwise our good individual intention will serve no purpose. And then the state-, can and should work, can and should, on helping another country. But we may also want to help, and if we want to, we have to make sure that what we give reaches its final destination.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I'd then give the floor to PTFG1_F3. Just one aside: you've all done a second round except for PTFG1_F1 and PTFG1_M2. So, if you want to speak, go ahead. Go ahead, PTFG1_F3.

PTFG1_F3: I'm in line with what PTFG1_M4 said in relation to individual responsibility. Individual responsibility has a charitable connotation that we here in Portugal, at least, when there is some boating accident with migrants, we send the blankets all very happy, but when it comes the time to vote (short pause) and choose and defend immigration policies, oops [gesticulates hesitation], we’ll have none of that.

At Christmas, we collect a lot of food with the food bank, but we complain about the social benefits: "that person does not want to work", or we think very well (short pause) ask for food with uber and that person is in the most precarious situation, extremely precarious, right? We don't have- and that's (short pause) an individual responsibility that we can assume on a daily basis, and we don't either.

I just wanted to add this: that individually... [shakes head in an ironic way] - it doesn't make as much sense as -, we have to think about public policies, politics for everyone and not individual attitudes. It does not mean that we have to- the public policy itself is already educational by itself.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. So, we've PTFG1_F1 lined up to speak, PTFG1_F6, and PTFG1_M2 as well. I therefore make an appeal to your sense of synthesis in this last round on this particular subject. I give the floor to PTFG1_F1.

[00:49:53]

PTFG1_F1: We're already talking about things that are little advanced. I agree that there should be countries that should help more, in this case would be the heavy countries, answering the first question. In the second question, I think that at the level of this issue of being individual or not, I think it makes sense if we are in a community, so to speak - if this is the name that can be put forward, there should be a more generalized issue. Now, freedom always exists and if each person-, if he is a millionaire and if he wants to make an individual donation, why not? That will be a choice of each person, so I think freedom above all, and I think this will then be a choice of each person. If I want to contribute with one euro, ten, or more, I think it's a little bit out there, that's it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. I'll give the floor to PTFG1_F6 now and let PTFG1_M2 finish the round.

PTFG1_F6: I was thinking about it because of the question of difference between countries. Countries are not in a level playing field. There are richer countries, there are poorer countries, there are countries that are in more disadvantaged areas than others. In fact, those who are disadvantaged certainly have fewer resources to be able to help in a complicated situation. In this I question, hmm why we're not all in the same situation, aren't we? Why are we not all on an equal footing, in terms of social economic terms, because we are not. And it seems to me more of a European Union of inequality than of equality. This also ( ). That's what I wanted to share. I think that countries do not have to have the same obligations, but on the other hand it does not have to be the same countries that always have the obligations. It does not have to be the same countries that finance the most disadvantaged countries. It should be something common, that they could share, that they could help each other in different circumstances, but that's not what happens.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. I'll now give the floor to PTFG1_M2.

PTFG1_M2: Okay, I think it's all been more or less said. There are countries that are probably much stronger than us. To support, maybe there's... (short pause) as in condominiums, there is a permillage, I have no idea. And also, the European Union-, the European Union itself, must have funds hmm (short pause) that it can hmm allocate for this, which it does not have to withdraw from anywhere. As for people’s contributions: I think everyone can help and it doesn’t have to be with money, we do not need to take 100 euros, at 500 or 1000 euros, there will be a lot of people in need of clothes, children in need of toys, things that everyone already have and that I think is easy, too much or too little, everyone contributes to this on a personal level and it doesn't have to be money because for that I think there are (short pause) there are other ways to do it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. So, we'd move on to scenario two. Let's move on to the next phase of our discussion. This is going to be another scenario on the same line as the previous scenario, so a hypothetical scenario that will serve as the basis for further discussion (short pause) on these subjects. So let us imagine, for example, if an economic crisis such as the euro crisis would happen again, and some countries within the European Union were adversely or negatively hit more intensely than others. How should your country react? I don't know if we have any volunteers. So, we have PTFG1_F7 and then PTFG1_M4 goes ahead.

PTFG1_F7: So, I believe there will be countries that, in a financial crisis, are more affected. We can try hmm (long pause), pass measures of consuming more what is from Europe and not only what is from Europe, but products and goods from these most affected countries. Because we can't neglect our responsibility to help each other and part of that is not to let their economy go down, as well as ours.

I think we also need to make more efficient the investment that is delivered to society. In this case ensure that if we are to allocate subsidies, that they are being delivered hmm in the best possible way. That is, those who are in a state of unemployment are in a position for some reason that is actually justified, because there are people who want to work and others who do not want to work. Those who cannot work for physical, psychological conditions, or because they do not have a right opportunity because the market, or the state does not allow them access by their ethnicity, or by their age, or appearance, or some other condition of discrimination, is a more delicate situation. However, there are people who have very good physical and psychological skills and are able to work- and the situation hmm (short pause) should be well regulated, in this case payments to contain unnecessary expenses and to invest money in what really matters, which is to generate economic power for all of us and also with our economic power to contribute to others.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. We then have PTFG1_M4, and if, in the meantime, it would be nice if more people signing up to speak. Go ahead, PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: Okay, Portugal has already gone bankrupt three times practically. The last time was in 2011 and the Troika came. The International Monetary Fund, the European Bank, and loans that we have contracted and which we still have at the moment-, a monstrous debt that is growing day by day, which we will fall into another bankruptcy in a short time. Another year, two, we're bankrupt again.

Right now, only Portugal and Italy, and maybe Spain are on that path. The other countries have money, but they already are questioning if they should lend it to us. The Netherlands says that we are fado and things like that, as the Prime Minister and the Dutch Minister of the Economy, who accused us of it say. So, to be looking at a European protection fund-, it exists. But it doesn't offer money, it lends. Although the resilience fund is part a grant, but we will have to pay it. Europe will have to pay for it, and we will have to manage that payment.

To be going through crisis situations as we have at the moment, because of our own doing, as happened with Argentina that has already gone bankrupt and which was one of the best countries in America, and which has managed to fail with Peron's policies. We in Portugal are on our way to it. We cannot be asking the other countries, that by our mistakes, which they are tired of saying that we are on a bad path, tomorrow they will come to our rescue. Other countries also lack money and want to develop. If it were a catastrophe, something not expected, I admit that Europe would even help us. But we're on our way to the precipice right now. Europe is tired of warning us. We have banks and banks going bankrupt with brutal losses. We have TAP with brutal losses and we continue to sustain all that. Europe warns us, we do not want to listen, perhaps we will pay the consequences again with another Troika in a short time.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Before I give the floor to PTFG1_M4, I just wanted to recall one thing. In the initial question there was reference to how our country, in the case of Portugal, could REACT in a crisis situation in other countries or in another country. Some have already brought up this theme but have reversed the question. (long pause) That is, in the case is Portugal is in crisis, what are the obligations or not of other countries to help us. Therefore, I also want you to explore this dynamic, between being Portugal helping or being Portugal being helped. Now I give the floor to PTFG1_M4.

[00:59:31]

PTFG1_M4: Thank you, M. Because I have some difficulty imagining this scenario because it has happened, and therefore has ceased to be hypothetical to seem like a reality. I wanted to disagree here a little bit-, I'm going to open this door, I wanted to disagree here a little bit with what PTFG1_M4 said. I agreed with some things, disagreed with others. Hmm I think that in the first place, when we talk about the so-called foreign aid, it is first of all-, hmm is not a help ( ), when for example José Socrates said he needed the money to pay wages, he did not need the money to pay salaries, he needed money to bailout the banks, and for the interest on the debt. And so, when we discuss this issue of countries helping each other, we have to ask who is helping each other? What are we really helping in that country? Are we helping people or the financial system that is constantly collapsing? When we say the financial system-, is not only the financial system, but is the financial system mainly.

Hmm and therefore-, but I also put myself, now by inverting the issue, making the opposite reasoning as you were suggesting, of course probably-, this also has a little bit of nationalism here, but maybe a German or Dutch taxpayer thinks "so but I'm working and I'm supporting those bastards who don't want to work in Southern Europe?" - because sometimes that's the immediate thought, isn't it? Not least because states often-, they greatly influence this thought, and therefore for me this is no longer a scenario and is something that is constantly happening. In Europe, unfortunately, states also promote this. Hmm, and therefore this idea of help, I do not know to what extent it is that-. For example, PTFG1_M4 spoke in the Recovery and Resilience Plan, one part is loan, the other part is a grant. But the loan part when we pay the loan, we will pay interest so high that they will cover the loan and will still make a profit, and therefore we will be happy with the Recovery and Resilience Plan with which we will pay more than we will receive, hmmm says very little, and therefore this issue of aid deserved, we don't have time here, but I think we deserved to dig deeper, to understand what we are helping or what we are helping, rather than just talking about countries. Talking about countries is sometimes a little abstract. I can't, I'm sincere, I can't develop much more.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I think PTFG1_F1 was next, and after, PTFG1_M2.

PTFG1_F1: I'm sorry, but my connection dropped, I don't know if it was everyone. But how-, just in short, hmm I agree a little bit with what PTFG1_M4 said, not to say totally, because I really think-, we have behaved very badly, and in a scenario where we ONCE AGAIN need help, it’s a little like what PTFG1_M4 said, it’s always the same countries helping out, and it’s always the same countries behaving badly, this is a bit like elementary school, isn't it? So, I think that it, it becomes increasingly difficult to make the other countries realize that we need that help, when money is not really being, it is not being well spent. Again, it is the issue of monitorization. It's really making a plan then-, we've talked a lot about this planning issue, where is this money going to be spent? And then, monitorization. If it were the other way around, here I think Portugal also had a duty to help, with what we can obviously, but I think it is like this: rights and duties, being in a community, and it has to be both parties.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. I'll now give the floor to PTFG1_M2 and get PTFG1_F6 can prepare to speak afterwards.

PTFG1_M2: Well, (short pause) if it happened in another country-, hmm when it happened to us, we had to borrow money and pay what they wanted and how they wanted, and we are still paying. Hmm I think right now, if it happened in another country, the rules should be the same for everyone. (short pause) Maybe the loan shouldn't be with interest, or at least with such high interest rates. But that's what happened to us and Greece, for others it would have to be the same. In case we are in a crisis, like someone has already spoken, it was PTFG1_M4, talking about TAP. TAP is eating up all of our money. The banks that go bankrupt, we're the ones who have to pay for it. I think that's a very big factor that- if the loans weren't paid - if we didn't have that responsibility, in fact, it's not that we should owe anything, but if we didn't have that responsibility, maybe we could have-, (short pause) there would be a lot more money left for the rest. And then maybe we could balance the accounts much more easily, or with some ease, hmm, in case we don't have those charges.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. So now PTFG1_F6 has the floor.

PTFG1_F6: I just want to say I didn't misbehave. I've never been bad. On the contrary, I've always worked, never stopped working. And all the people I know around me have always worked hard and so I don't-, this story of Portugal misbehaving, I don't get along with it.

Another thing I have to say: I usually volunteer at the voting stations on election days and the abstention rate is around 50%, i.e., people have already had several opportunities to make a difference. They choose to stay at home and not vote. So, I think people should do something to make things different and not so much accuse people of misbehaving. Because Portugal is not lazy, I don't believe that. I just want to add this point of defense to Portugal

PTFG1_F1: Oh PTFG1_F6, I'm sorry, but when I said it wasn't the citizens, it was obviously the state-

PTFG1_F6: But the state is us. We are the state.

(PTFG1_F1: It would be good if that were the case.)

PTFG1_F6: We are, we are the state. We have the power to do it differently. If everyone were to vote, if the whole population were to vote to make a difference, the difference would be made. What happens is that people vote for two parties: the PS and the PSD. That's all, isn't it? Things change, but they look the same. There are other parties, there are other voices. There are things that can be done differently. That's why you can't complain when things stay the same. That corruption should continue to be encouraged, that corruption continues to be favored ( ), that what is happening, etc., is continued, etc. So, things are only going to end when we really realize that we have the power to do it differently. Our power to do it differently is to go and vote and not have a 50% abstention.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. I wanted to-, yet exploring a little bit this discussion that we are having, many of you have talked about conditionality. Hmm, by aid, from one country to another, there is or is there no consequence or constraints that can manage, so to speak, that aid. So, I don't know if we have anyone else who would like to develop this idea a little more, if you think so. I don't think PTFG1_F3's spoke in this round yet if I'm not mistaken. So, if PTFG1_F3 wants to talk, I give PTFG1_F3 priority. But obviously everyone is free to intervene. I appealed again to your sense of brevity, please. PTFG1_M4 and PTFG1_M4 have asked to speak. I give PTFG1_M4 the floor.

PTFG1_M4: Okay, I'll try to be succinctly. It's always hard to be succinct, I like to talk. Let's see, first of all, and about the conditionalities. I think there's a... I think it's like in the Act of the Ship of Hell, the play talks about of the moneylender who goes to hell, because he charged very high interest. And actually, that's what we have, they're almost loan sharks, who tell us, "My friends, you need money? So, we have it here, but we want the money back and we still want very high interest. Oh, and we're the ones who determine how much time you have to pay, how much you have to pay...". And so, this ceases to be a loan anymore...

In fact, the debt, just a parenthesis, the public debt-, to start with it’s not even public, but this would be another discussion, but the debt in Portugal, the goal is not to be paid. When someone lends money to someone on this magnitude, the goal is to keep paying for it. Each time you pay more interest, and therefore the goal is never to pay.

But still on the direct conditionalities that happen: first of all, the issue of interest has to be quickly reviewed, it is ridiculous. And secondly, it's this matter of being with your hands outstretched. Just a very quick joke about a couple who's sleeping and the wife-, the husband can't sleep, he's going around in bed [gesticulates with his arms frantically], and the woman turns to her husband and says, "but what's going on? You're not getting any sleep," "oh, I owe money to the neighbor upstairs". it has to do with the public debt and with all these loans that come up today with the IMF, etc. And the woman goes and opens the windows-, this is at two in the morning, and she shouts to the upstairs neighbor "look my husband is not pay now, he’s not pay anymore", and goes to bed. To which the husband replies "but how could you have gone to say that I’ll no longer pay...", to which she replies, "now he is the one who can’t sleep".

So, I think we have to think a little bit here- (short pause) maybe we have to shake things up here a little bit. PTFG1_F6 spoke, well, of the issue of abstention. It's structural in our country, unfortunately. Of course, we can say that has the vote has been extended, the power of parliament has also been diminishing, hasn’t it? And power have been passed out of national parliaments, and unfortunately, parliaments have less and less power. But I think we also have an obligation to demand a much more substantive democracy, not just parliamentary, but also substantive in which people can really take life into their hands and decide fundamental things. And the debt is one of them. As long as we don't stop this bleeding, we won't, we won't afford a number of fundamental things.

[01:11:20]

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I'll give the floor to PTFG1_M4 now.

PTFG1_M4: The problem of interest rates at the moment is not very complicated, we have even had negative interest rates, negative interest rates, because the European Bank has maintained negative interest rates. Portugal has even paid the International Monetary Fund our debt and contracted debts in the European Bank, because the International Monetary Fund has interest of, I do not know 2/3%, and the European Bank has negative interest rates. Our problems are not here. Our problem in Portugal is that, as a colleague has already said, is really the "owner of all this", who now is no longer, the man of Banco Espírito Santo, who has behind him other organizations, that I will not quote here who they are, which really has put the country in misery. The National Health Service is in misery. Education is in misery.

And all this for what? Because the government has not tried to fight corruption. Now the way to fight corruption may be with the process of people not abstaining, but abstention is a global problem. Look at Chile, which in the last elections, which has now changed, only 40% to 30% of individuals voted but then complain. At the bottom of this is a cultural problem, which in Portugal and other countries exists, that people really complain about, but then at the moment when they must express their will through democracy, they do not do so, and we end up with dictatorships. Military dictatorships, dictatorships like Russia with Putin and things like that. Now, this is something that is necessary, culturally, for Europe to raise people's awareness of the duty to vote. There are countries that have-, compulsory voting, if I’m not mistaken, only Belgium has it, is obliged to vote. And in Portugal it should also be obliged to vote. Because the person going there, expressing his-, at least could vote blank or null. But if the people went to the voting booths, maybe they’d vote and make a decision, but that's not what's happening in this country. So, there is a need to culturally motivate people to vote and schools are also not teaching children that duty. This set of civic duties. Many other things are lost, and children are not told that the duty to vote and express their opinion should come out. But governments have no interest in this coming to the surface.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. PTFG1_F7 also asked to speak, but before giving her the floor, I just wanted to say that-, if you want to develop the idea more or not, but it should keep the discussion in this idea of responsibilities. Responsibilities between countries, whether in a scenario of aiding another country, or being the receivers of aid. So, if you have any more thoughts to add on this issue of the relationship between countries and responsibilities and whether or not responsibilities should be conditional, go ahead. Go ahead, PTFG1_F7.

PTFG1_F7: I was just going to make an observation. Before we help others, and it is fundamental, we have to work on this issue of our corruptions. I believe that corruption is voluntary, but there is also the involuntary forms of corruption. The voluntary, we all know what it is like, but the involuntary one is the result of poor process formulation, from the base to the leaders and no one questions anything. And corruption is happening, because there is no expected execution in budgets, in funds, and many funds are diverted voluntarily or unintentionally. I just want to say this. We have to start with us because if we went to handout some help, or give some resources, at least the financial to other countries, if the whole process is not well described and if there is no supervision, as we have already said, corruption goes on and it passes to the other, and the other and another. No one questions, and we involuntarily incurring corruption as well.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I don't know if anyone else wants to add anything. If not, we can move on to our third and final scenario. So, PTFG1_M4 wants to add something. I appealed to your sense of succinctness, PTFG1_M4. Go ahead.

PTFG1_M4: I'll try to be fast. Following what PTFG1_F6 said just now, really means, most of the time, Portugal works-, assign individual responsibilities to people, I think it is extremely serious that this is done. I think responsibility and conditionality should be done between states, and when I say States, I don't say people or organized society, I mean those at the head of the state, it’s big capital that who has the great responsibility for what is happening. We can't think we have a world economy; the world debt is three times the GDP, and I don't think it's the individual, manual or intellectual worker who's to blame for it. And so, I think it's starting to understand whose responsibilities are seriously, so to speak.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. So, like I said, let's move on to our third and final scenario. So once again we have a reasonably hypothetical situation. Considering that there are inequalities between countries and between people within the same country, should the EU, or the European Union, have common programs or funds to REDUCE these social inequalities. And if so, or if not and why in the affirmative or why in the negative. I don’t know if we have volunteers (long pause). Okay, we got PTFG1_M2. I give the floor to PTFG1_M2.

PTFG1_M2: I don't know if it is funds that are needed. Because there it is, the funds usually don't go where they should go. Perhaps the funds could be a consequence of a strategy that exist for this to happen. (short pause) And a strategy that would work and be forced to function. The funds we already know what happens to the funds, most of the time-, anyway. So, I don't know if it's the money we need, or we would need, but as part of a strategy, as a complement to a strategy and not only receive money because it would only solve the problem temporarily and then we would go back to the same situation.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. So, we have PTFG1_F3 and PTFG1_M4 who want to speak.

PTFG1_F3: I think PTFG1_M4 is first, he raised his hand before, didn't he?

M: Everyone's going to get a chance to talk, so you can go ahead, PTFG1_F3.

[01:19:17]

PTFG1_F3: I think so, that the European Union should have income distribution programs and strategies between countries. I think one should also think of a European minimum, a European minimum wage. I also think that-, it's all just an opinion, I don't know anything about economics. I also think that (short pause), regarding taxes and industrialization, or the reindustrialization of countries, I think this also had to be thought of. The distribution of taxes also seems absurd to me that there are European tax havens. It's absurd that companies are based in the Netherlands or something. It also reflects-, also causes inequalities. These are things that I can’t get into my head. But at first that's what comes to mind.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. Then we have PTFG1_M4 and then we have PTFG1_F7 who want to speak. I give the floor to PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_M4: The problem of social inequality-, making an equalization between countries, this would not work. We had the example of the USSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which turned out to be a collapse. We have not been able to make an equalization between these countries, especially since there is still an independence between them. There is a mechanism of trying-, which allows us to end social inequalities, which is the European Social Fund, which we use and which we use poorly. Other countries use it well.

So, we cannot say that Europe did not have an attempt-, that there is no attempt at social equalization. We have the European social fund that many countries have used. Portugal has received a lot of money from the European social fund with virtually zero results. We are not being able to do equality, ON THE CONTRARY. We're generating misery. The number of the richest is getting smaller and the poor are increasing. We are not on our way to a system of social improvement, but on the way to a system where there is a worsening of social conditions. Each time- at this time almost 60% are receiving the minimum wage. The middle class is disappearing, and we don't know how to use what Europe is trying to do.

Europe will not intervene here in Portugal and impose on us. If we have to import Dutch couples into Portugal, to take care of us, or couples from Ireland, or from other countries. Because we don't really-. In the Netherlands a couple of Dutch generates a good social situation. In Portugal with a Portuguese couple, we generate a good corruption. And that is what is culturally- the problem is a cultural problem between the different countries of Europe.

I've had the opportunity to live in England. I've lived in the United States, including China. Therefore, I had the happiness of knowing other countries and I see an incredible difference between the Portuguese, for example, and the British. Or Americans, it's a different activity. This has to start from the beginning. It is not possible-, children have to be educated so that we can have a good future. In Denmark- a Danish child has a different way of thinking than a Portuguese one. That's the system's fault. We cannot be complaining about Europe, because we really do not want to join Europe, we are not interested.

The Portuguese live well with corruption. In fact, in Brazil they say that corruption is imported from Portugal and in Angola they say the same. The Portuguese introduced corruption. If this is tradition, I go to Romania-, in Romania corruption was also general, I do not know if now it has improved. In Bulgaria it's the same thing. So, the Nordic countries have a different way of being, they have a different culture, and the countries of the South have another culture, it is the Mediterranean culture. It will not be possible to remove Nordic culture or introduce Nordic culture in southern Europe. It is the problem of olive oil and other Mediterranean products.

Either way, it would be ideal. I agree that it would be good for Europe to be able to have the same productivity everywhere. We have very low productivity. The Germans have high productivity. The Irish are improving in a formidable way. And Latvia and these countries are improving, and we can't because our productivity is too low. Now they still want to move on to the 4-day working week, I do not know if with the aim of reducing salaries and increasing employment, because possibly firms can not only work only four days, it is necessary to hire more people, but possibly will pay less for each. That's what nobody says if they're going to pay less. And that's an interesting point that as far as I consider, is utopian, so that's the ideal, but it's not going to work. And that's my position.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I now give the floor to PTFG1_F7 and then to PTFG1_M4.

PTFG1_F7: I agree with what PTFG1_M4 said. In a way, really, countries are different, have different realities and different cultures. We're stuck, really, on what we've built all of us, the machine we've built. Our performances, our results are the fruit of what throughout our historic construction, we Portugal and the other countries, are the result of what we have been developing. So, we're a hostage to this situation. We can look, for example, at salaries in Switzerland, at wages in France, at the employability of certain professions that are very attractive and cause many of our young people to migrate out.

However, we must know that this is associated with such constructions. Maybe here in I have a lower cost of living, also derived from my purchasing power. But maybe I'll go to Switzerland, I can earn very well, but also spend very well. We have to put everything always in a comparative perspective.

Regarding funds to reduce inequalities, I think it's good that they exist. We work not only for the European Union but also together with the United Nations on some of the objectives of sustainable development and to see exactly these inequalities: gender inequality, inequality in access to opportunities, inequalities in education, etc., etc. We have different inequalities and the funds, at the very least and even see, have served at least, in my view, to raise awareness among people and of the new generations to these issues. Awareness is being created, which is a positive point. It's not all we want, it's not the perfect world, it doesn't solve the problem, but it's a start.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. I now give the floor to PTFG1_M4 and called upon on the initiative of the other participants to share their opinions with us.

PTFG1_M4: It's a very dense topic, I'll try to condense. I think there are several forms of equality, which PTFG1_F7 has even talked about now, at the outset-, I'll say this with many quotation marks, it's easier for us-, there is also not so much political courage to solve certain kinds of inequalities to the detriment of others. Because we are all a little bit in agreement that we need to address gender inequalities, we need-, inequalities regarding sexual and reproductive rights, etc., and so on, and so on, and so many times programs are created, and well and thankfully, to try to at least mitigate these inequalities in some way, isn't it? Within the framework of the European Union.

Now the question is: the greatest inequality that we have and that I do not see political courage at European level, let us say in general, to solve, it is in fact of those who work, who produces have almost nothing. And therefore, I find it very strange a European questioning, also greater-, hmm a claim that hmm-. For example, I don't even know if PTFG1_F3 spoke, I think in fact there may be maximum ceilings for rents, objectively, minimum wages, etc. Now, I think this might work, shall we say, as a buffer, and it won't perhaps structurally solve the problem. Because we will continue to have the inequality between those who have-, speaking in general, the so-called means of production and those who sells their labor, and therefore we to structurally address this inequality, which in my opinion is the greatest, hmm we have to act hmm structurally.

How do I think we can do it? I think throwing, let's say, just funds isn't going to solve the problem. I think we really need to realize that what's in the hands of a half a dozen people, can't be in the hand of half a dozen. It has to be in the hands of the entire population, and we need to have that courage to take that step forward. I know this is probably a minoritarian position, but I think it's critically that we start debating this, seriously and without demagoguery, and realize that we can't have half a dozen-, half a dozen in quotes obviously, but half a dozen people, brands, millionaires, that's what we're talking about. And those who produce effectively for society, whether in goods or services, whatever it is, are constantly on the lookout of being fired. Labour rights too-, PTFG1_F3 said so, in Europe they are also-, they were a great post-war achievement, they are now constantly threatened. And therefore, I think it is structural this inequality of labor, mainly.

Then one last question-, sorry M I'm not going to take long, it has to do with productivity-, which I think was PTFG1_M4 who also talked about productivity. In fact, there is a big productivity gap here in different countries within the European Union, and we always see that thing of which came first. Whether it was the low wage or if it was productivity. I think it was-, the low productivity came because of wages are low. And therefore, we blame the worker, he is lazy and does not work and such. People are increasingly working and getting less and less in relative terms.

And then we have the question of the Euro, hmm is also fundamental because the Euro is a single currency, but to what extent is it really a single currency? Because a Euro here isn't worth the same as a euro in Germany, isn’t it? It was that issue that PTFG1_F7 raised, and well, that the cost of living, etc.-. The euro is not the euro, it is not a single currency. It's a kind of currency rodízio that has a different value, according to the country we're in. And so all these are structural issues that have to be discussed and which are not being discussed at European level, in my opinion.

[01:32:04]

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Then I give the floor to PTFG1_F1 and PTFG1_F3 can go next.

PTFG1_F1: Yes, in short, we're also a little over time, at least I speak for myself. And I'm not productive at this hour either, we've been talking so much about productivity. Hmm, it's like that, I think so. To answer the question, (short pause) there should be this aid, BUT not only economic aid, because there are various types of inequality, and I think that gender inequality is very important and we have the example of Hungary, and everyone knows the controversy that it is causing in the European Union, and what has been talked about and discussed. It's a very important point, we have social inequality-, (short pause) and there will always be inequalities, it's something we have to accept. This is something that is always going to exist, it's not worth saying because this or that. No, it always will exist. And we have to know how to live with it and try to MINIMIZE, we're never going to be able to erase it. And therefore, minimize with programs with other type of aid, not just money.

It is important to share opinions. Perhaps what we are doing here today should exist, but on other issues with various people - I don't know, of different nationalities. I speak for myself, I had the opportunity to do ERASMUS, which helped me a lot, opened me to the world. But there are people who don't have that opportunity, and if they don't, it's trying to reach out to more people and discuss these issues. I think it's a point-, sharing is an important point. So yes, but not only economic aid. We can't base everything on money and that's what I want to say, M.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. So, now I give the floor to PTFG1_F3.

PTFG1_F3: Hmm I also wanted to agree with PTFG1_M4, but add that today is very difficult-, we do not know anymore, money has no more owner, is not it? It's not the one who owns the means of production anymore, it's who owns the money. Because money makes money and we don't know, not with whom we have a problem, nor do you know who you talk to, because neo-necro-liberalism, rentism.

So, I think you have to- really, face and also demand more from the European Union (long pause). Let us also talk about regulating the economic market. I think politics has to intervene, because it can't be like this. We're not going to have good public policies as long as this general privatization of basic rights: water, sanitation. The other day two people died in Rio Tinto of cold. RIO TINTO is one of the largest parishes in the country. Energy poverty, it makes no sense (short pause). And if people don't face it head-on, stop being afraid, you know, to mess with it. I don't know how, to tax... I don't even know which way; I couldn't even tell. I have no idea. Tax large fortunes. I don't know, I have no idea. But if we don't face it and keep pretending that everything is okay and then the market, then capitalism that-. The market doesn't self-regulate at all. Look what's going on, it's-, and things are already in a dimension that's very difficult to go back.

We see that with the housing crisis. Here-, here in Brazil there is something called the social function of property. This is not applied, all right the constitution is more than 30 years old, there are very few municipalities that apply the social function of property. But what's that? You have the right to property if it fulfills its social function. So, you can't have a speculative plot in the middle of the city, or you can't have three hotels when you need housing. And then the state has to have several mechanisms to intervene there. So, we should give a social function to EVERYTHING. Social function of water, social function of public transport, social function of housing and facing that... So, face this God Capital, God Money. Because it's not an entity of its own, is it? The capital today doesn't even have that name, it has another name, because we don't even know whose it is and how it operates, it has a life of its own. So that’s it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. So, I wanted to introduce-, you talked about these things of joint duties of the European Union in some scenarios. I wanted to make this issue a bit more concrete. And therefore, I'll introduce another topic.

Should the EU have a European system to phase out unemployment in all EU countries, funded by all Member States. And whether your country should contribute to the reduction of unemployment in other countries of the European Union even if it entails, or may entail, additional costs for the country or for you personally. More taxes, for instance. Therefore, I would add these two themes to our discussion. (long pause) We have PTFG1_F7, we have PTFG1_F3, and we have PTFG1_M2. As we are already coming to the end of our time, I appeal to your sense of brevity, if possible. So, go ahead PTFG1_F7.

PTFG1_F7: Okay, we have to fight our unemployment here in Portugal, give opportunities to our citizens and those we welcome as a community. We must- on the other hand also, if (short pause), know how to give in to our employees, and workers, and trainees, and students, and citizens, who decide to go out, we should not exclude them just because their choice was to go to another country to perform their duties. They are Portuguese, all citizens who acquire nationality, or who are Portuguese, abroad must be treated in a similar way with-, similar or practically equal, within the possibilities that the Portuguese who reside in national territory not harming those who stayed here, giving advantages to others.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. Then I’ll give the floor to PTFG1_F3 and then to PTFG1_M2.

PTFG1_F3: I'd say so, but the basic conditions they already have had to be more or less levelled, don’t they? Then-, damn it, I got lost. I'm going to give the floor to PTFG1_M2.

M: Okay, so I'm going to move on to PTFG1_M2, and PTFG1_F3 will try to formulate her argument because I don't want you to lose the opportunity to speak. So, PTFG1_M2, go ahead.

[01:40:31]

PTFG1_M2: Yes, I am not against it, on the one hand, but on the other, I mean, we here earn 700 euros a month. I am paying, or helping to pay the unemployment benefit of someone who is in Luxembourg, which is a fortune compared to us, maybe it is a bit-, there is a lot of inequality here. Maybe what PTFG1_F3 was saying, or talked about balancing, if we all earned more or less the same, I think it would make sense. Now so, I mean, we already are-. There's not much left, if it were like that, even worse. If there was a balance of everything in the European Union, of course it does. I didn't see any harm in that. Now in the situation we are in, we and some other countries, it's complicated.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M2. I give the floor to PTFG1_M4 and then we go back to PTFG1_F3.

PTFG1_M4: Now the problem of unemployment in Europe is a somewhat complicated (short pause) problem. Fortunately, Europe allows individuals from one country to work in another. If it were not possible for young people at this time to go to Germany, or to France, or to other countries, this would be terrible. But the Schengen area gives us the possibility for young people to go to Germany or other countries, and many have done so. Unfortunately, the problem is in the countries of origin. In Portugal, for example, going to work in the Algarve is unfortunately impossible. Because what you spend on rents and the cost of living, the salary doesn't cover that, it's not enough. Now, I am not seeing Germany contributing, to come pay, so that this situation really changes. Because Germany knows how to manage, Ireland is managing magnificently, its productivity, and productivity-, Portugal's problem is a productivity problem.

Productivity is not done by a totally social process because to have taxes you need to generate money so that you can collect these taxes. There are two ways to generate money, in the Irish model, it is producing and then this production will go to workers, that money is reverted back to the workers. Or in the Chinese process in which the government dictatorially imposes production and then evens the payments, although it is not leveled as we often think. In China there are millions of individuals, or billions, almost having no money and living in the fields or else are in production centers like those Western provinces in China where they are in concentration camps. But in Ireland productivity is showing that it really, socially, is produced.

Now, we can't distribute goods socially if we don't generate them. The government doesn't generate money, at this point it can't even produce the currency. If it could produce the currency, as it is done in Venezuela, producing currency and devaluing. But we don't even have that possibility. Europe has done enough; we are no longer doing enough. And other countries aren't either. Spain is not either. It was, therefore-. We cannot accuse Europe. Europe is doing-, socially it is promoting employment. And what is happening is that from Portugal, individuals with qualifications flee. Why do they run away? Because they're underpaid. The government should interfere in this regard, but the government only cares about the minimum wage, it does not care about the remaining salaries. Have any of you ever heard of that the average salaries should go up? NOBODY. Why? Because the average salary is linked to productivity and the minimum wage is linked to the social function. Well, that's not how problems are solved. As far as I know this situation is generating-, not much in Italy, but in Spain, it is generating itself in this way. And other Mediterranean countries, because to the north there is employment. Germany is importing Arab individuals because it lacks manpower. And we continue with the social function that invites-, there are many people who are not worth working because socially they earn more from subsidies and minimum subsidies allocated by the government. Simply, the government is no longer having the money to pay for all this. And this is what is interesting to discuss.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I give the floor to PTFG1_F3 and then to PTFG1_F6.

PTFG1_F3: I leave it to PTFG1_F6, because PTFG1_M2 said what I wanted to say. That's it, PTFG1_M2. He explained it well. I wouldn't mind paying more, but since that-. It's different for me to pay, we pay 50% tax on our salary of a Dane then to pay 50% tax on my salary. The quality of the services-, really, the thing has to be more or less levelled. The quality of public services and the average income let's put it this way.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. So, I give the floor to PTFG1_F6.

PTFG1_F6: Before I share my idea, I would like to say that there are Portuguese hmm parties that advocate raising the national average wage. There are voices that advocate this increase, in addition to the national minimum wage.

On this idea of Europe, the idea that came to me was what kind of thinking the countries have done? Have you had the model of communion of goods, that is, all that is of each country is of all and can be shared among all? Did they have a marriage with separation of property, that is, all the goods that the countries already brought to this marriage, this union, is from each country and was not shared with others? Or another regime, that of acquired goods, that is, all assets that were built in this relationship, in the case of separation or divorce, would be divided and only would they have what they had brought to the union? I think it is important to define what kind of relationship these countries really have with Europe, i.e., how Europe, the various countries of the European Union, has this obligation to fight unemployment and provide financial support to other countries?

I think that Portugal, given what has already been said, is in a situation of great inequality, there is no balance and in the case of Portugal needs help-, in fact, if another country needs financial help, or needs unemployment support, Portugal is unable to support it. Because we don't have the resources, do we? So, I think that if there is no such equality, it is very difficult-, if this level of commitment is not really defined in relation to others, it is very difficult to define what the competence of the European Union is in these situations.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F6. I give the floor to PTFG1_F1.

PTFG1_F1: Just saying I agree with PTFG1_M2 and PTFG1_F3, this must be levelled. And that's it, I'll tell you that I'm going to leave you. Thank you all and thank you for your sharing and good benefit to all. That's it.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F1. Thank you. And with this cue, we now enter the final stretch of our session. Okay, PTFG1_M4 is asking to speak. VERY QUICKLY, very quickly.

[01:49:33]

PTFG1_M4: It'll be quick. First of all, I'm sorry. I had to go away. It'll be quick. I don't know what was said, but I think in terms of unemployment policies in general, I think it's very important that we have to sit at the table, let's say, have a conversation about wages. Try minimally to level. I think it's also essential to discuss working hours. We begin to realize that productivity has been increasing brutally in recent decades, ( ) regardless of country, and therefore on the one hand, try to level, or at least, according to the capacities of each country, increase its own productivity and accompany this with a generalized reduction in working hours, not only for social purposes, but because people have more time for themselves, but also because it creates more jobs. I think that's the general issue-. I didn't hear everything, so I'm sorry. I can't say much more, comment much more.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. So, like I said, let's move on to the final stretch of our session. And as is self-evident, we have been discussing issues about the European Union today and addressing many issues, always in this perspective of responsibility, but within that line, there have been many topics such as inequality, immigration, differences in living standards in European countries, etc. So, what I leave you to consider yourself, and I appeal to your sense of brevity, whether you think or consider that there are other areas that you think to be important or relevant when we talk about these mutual aid relations between the countries of the European Union, and the role of the European Union in this mutual aid. If you think that there are other topics that are relevant and that have not been discussed here, within this logic of what we owe to each other. I don't know if there are any volunteers. We have PTFG1_M4. Go ahead.

PTFG1_M4: Now, we are here forgetting the problem of employment, how it will develop in the future. In Portugal, for a long time now, there has been a shortage of people for construction and other areas, and the same is true in other countries of Europe. Which is basic and cheap labor. Because the industrial workforce is being replaced by automation. Automation in China is already creating problems because automatic machines produce much more than workers. That is why it is necessary to prepare workers better in order to be able to perform other functions. Because machines are invading the market. The productivity of an industry, for example, of car manufacturing where there are virtually no workers in the line, or the manufacture of computers in which workers no longer exist either, this is unbalancing the system. And we are thinking a lot about unemployment, or the situation of minimum wages, because these workers that we have do not serve, and there is one thing that we should insist: that is the training of workers.

We have the European social fund, effectively trying to improve the position of workers in terms of knowledge. There are workers who can recover and others where this is not possible. But we are seriously thinking-, in Portugal this money that comes here is lost, the training of workers is lost. That money disappears, evaporates. I do not know what is happening in Europe, but it is really necessary, to solve employment and solve the social part, for productivity to increase in order to be able to tax more taxes. To be able to distribute money and sustain society. But I don't see that-. In Germany there is indeed a lot of vocational training, but in Portugal there is very little. There are few vocational training centers. Europe should really encourage that all countries have good vocational training so that in the future they can perform other functions.

Street cleaning has been done by machines for many years. The only thing that's not yet being done by machines is construction. But in a little while, we're going to have machines, through printers, making buildings, and then the masons are going to disappear. So, there is no emphases on this issue, which is the training of workers. It's very nice to give money to the workers, it's very beautiful to pay them more. Productivity doesn't really work and if we want to have money to distribute, we have to have productivity which is what China does. China has brutal productivity and is owning the world and we in Europe-, I’m not seeing that way.

Europe should improve productivity, but Europe is a disunited system. Look at defense. Europe has no defense capacity. If it's not NATO, and NATO is America and England. Germany has no armed forces. Even France doesn't belong to NATO. What do we in Portugal have? We have half a dozen individuals we send to Africa. So, there is no union in Europe. Europe is very beautiful at talking, but terrible in unity. It's a union of employment, a union of defense, of the union of everything. Europe is not having a union that is valid. Because we don't want to. There is no patriotism in Europe. America has more patriotism than Europe. There are countries-, Japan has much more patriotism, and we are still waiting for the American hat and the English hat, which has now disappeared, and there is no connection from the countries of mutual aid. Because if there's no military aid, there won't be any mutual aid either. If we have any problem, we've seen the case of Ukraine, Europe just talks, talks, and says nothing else. And what does Europe say next? Let's cut with the gas. But you can't! You need it. Europe is therefore still disunited. It's an artificial system. The only thing that in Europe, more or less, is the Euro that is imposed there, against the dollar. Because in the rest, Europe doesn't... I don't see anything special in Europe.

In that respect we have the directives. The directives the countries adhere to and yet there is a discrepancy in VAT's, and in many things in Europe. And I don't see it. Now it's going to be the problem of electricity and gas, that I'm to see if France is going to support us, they have the atomic power plants and we who don't have power, we're going to have blackouts. Spain taxes us on the transport of energy that the other countries-, from Russia to Spain no one taxes, the Spaniards deliver energy in Catalonia, they go to get energy here in northern Spain, they deliver it to Portugal, but they tax us for the transport. Now, Europe like this, I'm not seeing it. And that's what-, a lot more things to say that...

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. I give others the opportunity to intervene. I don't know if there were any registrations, though. PTFG1_M4 asks in the chat what was the last question. Basically, it was whether you consider that there were topics that were left out of this discussion from this perspective of mutual aid relations within the European Union. I don't know if anyone else wants to add anything, if you don’t, let’s move on to another issue and then we can finish our session. So… Ok, PTFG1_F3 go ahead.

PTFG1_F3: I think I would only add more things like-, it was said at the beginning, but on the issue of immigration. A strategy for welcoming immigrants. To deal with the issue of immigration, because, if, Europe needs immigrants. We need to look at Europe's help, not only within Europe, but also outside of Europe. Because if immigrants-, if Europe needs immigration to-, if it needs hmm immigrants too you have to think, you also have to think about how to help the countries of origin of these immigrants. Okay, here's the thing. I think that treating the issue of immigration as a European issue and not as something external, unrelated to Europe.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F3. I don't know if anyone else has anything else to add, if we you don’t, we can move quickly to PTFG1_M4 and then we'll finish the discussion. Okay, PTFG1_M4 signed up, I'll give you the opportunity and then PTFG1_M4 can complement.

[01:59:58]

PTFG1_M4: First off it was-, I'm sorry, I want to know what the specific question was. I didn't get it right. What that last question was.

M: That was the question: If you consider that there were other topics that were not discussed here, but which are important, in your consideration, on these issues of relations between Europe and the member states

PTFG1_M4: There's lots of them, but...

M: Yes, and I appeal to your sense of brevity.

PTFG1_M4: Yes, yes, yes, completely. So, I think, PTFG1_M4 talked about NATO, for example. I think it is crucial that we discussed the role of the European Union in NATO here. I am personally against the existence of NATO, but that was it, it was a discussion that we could have here.

The question of the Euro could also have been-, it is different to talk about the Euro zone and the European Union, but I think it is important that we explore the implications of the currency a little more, etc., in economic relations mainly.

The question of-, I think it would have been interesting to talk, or could have talked a little more, about the issue of relocating production to other parts of the globe and also how it puts that pressure on immigration, which also serves as social dumping, and people react in protectionist ways to immigration and look at migrants like someone who come from outside and, therefore, are not welcomed. The states themselves, unfortunately, promote this. Anyway, salary discussion, etc., etc.

Hmm an issue that I also think would have been fundamental to talk about (short pause), which has to do with the democratic process itself and elections. We said that abstention was a very widespread thing in the European Union... (short pause) there’s a cat or a dog, I do not know [referring to PTFG1_M4’s zoom feed]. As I was saying, [smirks] its interesting, for example-, there will be some reason, I say I don't know, it would be interesting to study M on your part. For example, in the Netherlands, the abstention rate is relatively low when compared to a large part of the countries of the European Union. Why does this happen? It's a question I leave on the table. It would be interesting to know why that happens.

Hmm more. In addition. Oh! Another issue that we did not talk about, and I think it could have been interesting, is the one-. For example, we are in the European Parliament, but then there are a number of European institutions that decide, they make decisions, but they are not legitimized. I think it’s important that we discussed this. If these people-, in fact, the President of the European Parliament has passed away recently, hmm whether or not these people have that legitimacy. From my point of view, they don't.

There are many other issues, I now do not remember all, I apologize. But yes-. Oh! The Treaties of the European Union themselves, CETA, TTIP, etc., the implications that they entail. It would be interesting to discuss this, too. Hmm and so these are the topics that I'm remembering now.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. So, I quickly give the floor to PTFG1_M4 and if no one else wants to add anything else, we can close the session.

PTFG1_M4: What I wanted to address is the problem of immigration of peoples who come from outside Europe. Right now, in France the problem is very complicated. Arab immigration is already very large, it is already representative in relation to the number of French. Because they multiply faster than the French. You're creating a complicated social situation. For example, in France, it is already forbidden to speak of the holocaust. Because the Arabs say the holocaust didn't exist. In France, pork already has been withdrawn from educational establishments. And the French are getting fed up with the immigrants.

In England there was Brexit because there were many English cities that already had more immigrants, mainly Africans and Indians, than English people. Wolverhampton was a city where the number of Indians was already higher than the number of English. Therefore, a very strong increase in immigration is dangerous for Europe. Because the immigrants-, any day France is an Arab country, because France has many Arabs. And the Arabs are already running France. Just like the Portuguese run Luxembourg. One third of Luxembourg's population is Portuguese. But Portugal belongs in Europe. Arab countries don't belong. Therefore, the problem of immigration is complicated. Portugal is now being a gateway for Arab migrants to Europe. Germany has received them, but in Germany there is already a backlash against migrants, Turks and others, the problem of immigration has to be dealt with very carefully.

It's a fact that they come here as cheap labor, but it's at the same time a poisoned gift. Because Europe is not accepting them and any day there will be a negative reaction against them. We’ll not see in the future a situation similar to that which Germany had in the 1930s and 1940s, in which the Jews left and that ( ). And any day in Europe there is that risk. Therefore, immigration has to be treated very carefully. But Germany has seen it and France. They prefer Portuguese immigrants, who work, who produce, who are peaceful. They prefer immigrants from the countries of the South. That's why they're not interested in unbalancing the market. Germany does not have the slightest interest that in Portugal there are no longer poor people, because they are necessary. And right now, intellectually, our universities graduates are running away to the northern countries. We are training technicians for the northern countries for free, and they know it. We're not going to be able to reverse that. Our voice in Europe, unfortunately, is very small. We have little weight in Europe. They're erasing it, they subsidize us on a lot. Our roads are subsidized by them. Portugal's development has been subsidized by Europe. And we have to understand that Europe at the bottom is a balancing act between states.

There are rich states, there are poor states. We benefit from rich states, they benefit from poor states. And it is good that this notion, that exists and that is real, and it will not be changed in the future. We're not going to be able to change it. The only advantage that Portugal has is the climate. The climate generates tourism.

M: PTFG1_M4, I just wanted to ask you to finish, please.

PTFG1_M4: Tourism was our great weapon, which we lost in the pandemic. And it was foreseen in Europe, we were talking-, I had the opportunity in Belgium-, and these ideas were normal in Belgium. In the Commission there are people there, I have students there, my students who are in the Commission, and they precisely say that. So, we're not going to make things up beyond that. Okay, there was a lot more to say, but... I’m finished.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_M4. Meanwhile PTFG1_F6 had to leave, she warned me and had to leave. We're already in a pretty advanced hour, so... I ask PTFG1_M4 and PTFG1_F7 to be ULTRA quick to finish the session. So, I give the floor to PTFG1_F7 and then let PTFG1_M4 finish. But quick, brevity, please.

PTFG1_F7: Just to follow PTFG1_M4's conversation, we must not annul our culture, on the contrary. We must strengthen it for the sake of welcoming others. We must not nullify our culture in favor of welcoming others. We are giving them healthcare conditions, we are giving them safety conditions, we are giving them Europe. So, if we are giving them Europe, it is Europe that we are going to give, not an adapted Europe. We should not impose, but we should not let them take place and replace our rules. That's all I have to say, I'm sorry.

M: Thank you, PTFG1_F7. And now PTFG1_M4 is going to cap off the discussion [PTFG1_M4 seems to be having connection issues]. I don't know, it looks like PTFG1_M4's not online. Okay, so, and considering the time we've already set up here at our meeting, I'd like to thank you all. Thank you for your availability. Thank you so much for sharing your opinions with us and making your time available to us. We, as I said, invite you to follow the project’s website, if you want, I can get you to this by email today or tomorrow. And if you're interested in knowing what we're going to produce in the project in scientific terms, don’t hesitate to contact us either. And thank you all so much! I hope you have a good evening.

PTFG1_M4: Here's PTFG1_M4!

M: Yes, yes, but really now, the store is closed now.

PTFG1_M4: It was also a quick reply to answer some things, but it's ok.

M: The shop has closed. Again, thank you very much and good evening to everyone.