M: OK. All right, let's start the discussion. So, first, and as an introduction, I ask you all to write down, hmm in one sentence, it could be 3 words, it can be 2, whatever it is, the first 3 thoughts that come to mind when you hear the expression European Union, or EU, or Europe, we are referring to the European Union. If you have a pencil and paper, write down those thoughts, and I'll just give you a minute to write it down.

(long pause)

If all of you are ready, you'll go through the zoom windows so that we can share our thoughts. Not ready yet? Okay, we can wait a little longer.

(long pause)

Are we all set? Okay, so I give the floor PTFG3_M2.

PTFG3_M2: Should I just read what I wrote down?

M: Yes, yes.

PTFG3_M2: OK. Hmm I wrote Union, not by the name of the European Union to be European Union, but by the perspective of common space in this case. Group and Diversity.

M: Okay, PTFG3_M2 thank you. What do you mean by Group, briefly?

PTFG3_M2: That is, an aggregation of several countries, is not it?

M: And Diversity too, by the way.

PTFG3_M2: That is, a set-, of visions and cultural thoughts that each country has within an area such as the European Union.

M: OK. Thank you, PTFG3_M2. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3 now.

PTFG3_F3: I chose Relationship because the countries are all interconnected. I chose Progress because I believe the EU has brought us this. And Innovation.

M: Okay, you explained what you meant by Relationship, but what you meant by Progress. And Innovation, you want to explore these a little bit more?

PTFG3_F3: In comparative terms and because we are probably subject to the same goals and legislation, we end up perhaps innovating according to what is expected of us, as well.

M: Okay, PTFG3_F3 thank you. We now go to PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M5: So, hmm the first word is Superstructure and then the second is Incoherent Union, not in the sense of the relationship, but in the sense of the message of peace and the way it was made, the origin of the European Union, which is the search for peace between neighbors, but incoherent because in a way it turns out not-, or in my view, it is not so coherent as all that. And that's it.

M: And so briefly, this idea of superstructure, what do you mean by that?

PTFG3_M5: It's because you basically have an infrastructure and a superstructure, something that's above that [gesticulates with both hands, overlapping each other]. And that basically the involvement of the superstructure and precisely there, at the infrastructure. And I-, I see the European Union as the superstructure and our government as infrastructure and as something that also works a lot in function of that. And that is the point of view that I see and think about superstructure.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. I now give the floor to PTFG3_M4.

PTFG3_M4: Ok, so the words I chose for the European Union, was Group, therefore being a set of several countries. I have also chosen the word Incoherence, because in a way the European Union says the message that we must proclaim peace, but nevertheless we see this incoherence in the actions of the European Union itself regarding the proclamation of peace and helping people.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M4. So, um, you just have two words, is that it?

PTFG3_M4: Yes.

M: Okay, thank you PTFG3_M4. PTFG3_F1 has the floor now.

PTFG3_F1: Hmm I wrote the sentence “idyllic but imperfect”, because I think the intention of creating the European Union is excellent, however I think there are still many inequalities that need to be addressed. And, in the way, the European Union is organized at the moment, I don’t think we will be able to overcome them. A {new} way is necessary, shall we say, (short pause) in the way the European Union has worked.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. And I now give the floor to PTFG3_F6.

PTFG3_F6: Okay, so my three words are: Community ( ), Rights in the sense of the rule of law and fundamental rights, and Economy in the sense of being a political union, but also economic union.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. Hmm I was just going to explore one more thing, but I think we're going to have to do it later. Let's move on to the next phase and here is you’ll have a freer discussion, without having to write things down. So how would you describe your position, or attitude, or feeling, for example, towards the European Union. And I open the floor.

PTFG3_M2: Can I go ahead?

M: Sure, PTFG3_M2.

PTFG3_M2: Well, that is, my opinion slash feelings concerning what I think of the European Union, right M?

M: Yes, yes, yes.

PTFG3_M2: Well, I think for me specifically, and some of the participants who are here, it’s the same as in relation to the Euro. Many of us were already born with the Euro, many of us were already born with the European Union itself. I personally do not know a reality other than Portugal being part of the European Union. However, from what I follow, about the debates, about European situation, there are two kinds of feelings that you have.

The first is that everything seems very distant, that is, the decisions that are taken do not pass by the people, by representatives in general, and they are very little scrutinized by the media. In other words, it is not clear what the European institutions, what decisions they make, what pretexts, who is in charge, who isn’t. Although I personally know, from research, but it is not easy to understand. In other words, it seems that it’s all a matter for others, and not for us, we only comply because it is the European Union, and because it is the rules that have to be followed.

At the same time, it seems an idealized project, it could be very useful those who -, for those who are the poor, but in reality, is not as well used as that. In relation to the pandemic itself, there was very little solidarity between the countries, there was very little sense of (short pause) of a real union that would benefit the more, more deficient countries, such as the case of Portugal.

And I believe that-, a third question, I would not say that this is the case, but this is what most people I know think, in their day-to-day life that the European Union is funds. The European Union... In other words, any public work that is done has funds from the European Union itself, and there is no idea that there is a counterpart on these funds. And where they come from. I defined the European Union at the moment, for me, as a nebula that exists, it is everywhere, but no one knows for sure what it’s doing.

[00:10:28]

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M2. We have the registration of PTFG3_F1, and then PTFG3_M4. Go ahead, PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: What I'm going to say follows what PTFG3_M2 just said. Hmm, but I think the European Union (short pause) falls-, despite the goal, the goal that the (short pause) that originated it is to bring (short pause) equality to all countries within the European Union and trying to standardize human rights and standards in the various countries, I think, as it is in plain sight, that it is usually the same countries that benefit. Normally, France and Germany always end up coming out with a little more advantage and... I don’t know whether I’m supposed to introduce this topic here, but I feel that the European Union has also-, although it originated with the principle of equality, in this pandemic it has not demonstrated this to the other countries of the world by not wanting the patents of the vaccine to be lifted because that principle that founded isn’t passed out and at the moment, relations-, the European Union has much more of a monetary purpose than to ensure citizens' rights.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. I now give the floor to PTFG3_M4 and then to PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M4: Ok, in my opinion, what I think about the European Union, the solidarity project with which it was supposed to be, when the European Union was created, when the European Union emerged, that solidarity project, for me, that project has failed. Because I think the European Union has lost touch with peoples' rights. And I am also going to follow what PTFG3_F1 has said, which is, especially at this stage of the pandemic, in the last two years the European Union-, at least I don’t feel that the European Union is very close to the peoples of Europe. We also have, for example in the case of the vaccines, we still have many countries that needed help in vaccination, and the European Union does not... I don’t see the European Union helping or doing anything to make that happen, to help these countries. So, I think that this solidarity project that the European Union has, is a project that has failed.

And above all, the equality that comes from outside, from the European Union, when they speak of equality, but it seems that it is all talk. They don't get in on the action. That's what I have to say.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M4. Hmm some of you have already started talking about this perspective of benefits, and have mentioned funds, and things like that. So, not dropping the question I asked earlier about your position on the European Union, I’ll also introduce this issue into our discussion. So, it was basically to put ourselves in this perspective: if someone, it doesn't matter very well who, argued that joining the European Union is a beneficial thing for your country, or that it brings disadvantages, what disadvantages and what benefits would you list in particular. But this is one more question for reflection, we are not dropping the first question about your position towards the European Union. Now I give the floor to PTFG3_M5 and then to PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_M5: Come on, hmm. Oh! I think I'll even be able to connect (the funds?) to answer this last question of yours as well. That is [cough], which is in relation-, that goes very much in line with what PTFG3_M2 said that goes a little through transparency or lack of information. Because in fact, the European Union has much influences our country a lot, and objectives and everything, which have to be met, are also discussed, and in that sense, I think-, and this is more of a feeling, in which there is one-, and generates ignorance and speaking about the European Union is a bit boring. I had a class called Constitution of the Republic and the European Union and that's where I actually, like, I studied a little bit and I don't remember well, but I know that there are some phases of integration for the European Union, it goes through transport, free movement, and the economy, and human rights, it's a huge phase. And to answer that question, I think the European Union in economic terms can be advantageous for some countries, but not for everyone. And I think that in terms of transport, globalization, in the sense of being easier-in the Region of Europe, isn’t it? - but it would make it much easier for us to travel to different countries. I think that's pretty cool. Not only for culture, to know other cultures, but to - professionally, a person if he wants to travel, if he wants to change country, there is a greater EASE-, I'm not finding another word. Equivalence too, in this sense. Which I think brings many advantages, however I think it brings many disadvantages, namely economic, in the case of Portugal, I think our structure is too fragile - it is and was! Too fragile to go through this transition and in that sense-, as there are other cases where they haven't changed the currency, I think that's always things you can think about.

Still answering the question, from the first discussion, I think-, the incoherence already shows a little what I also feel to be my position towards the European Union. I think hmm, on paper things turn out to be beautiful, but in practice things are not. We can talk about refugees, we can talk about the differences as PTFG3_F1 mentioned, in relation to the Member States, how things work particularly in economic reforms, which I think-, and its capitalist and my position goes against capitalism, precisely because of the differences of the people and everything else that turns out to be a superstructure that could even be something positive, but that, taking into account things as they are, and in my view, are not at all hmm positive. And I'm finished.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3 and PTFG3_F6 has not yet registered. I do not know if PTFG3_F6 wants to speak in this round.

PTFG3_F6: I haven't sign up because I assumed I was going to talk at the end, as everyone signed up...

(M: Oh ok…)

PTFG3_F6: That was it, ok?

M: Then, come on, consider yourself registered. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3.

[00:18:58]

PTFG3_F3: Hmm ok, I think the EU also lacks a little transparency, as PTFG3_M2 mentioned, PTFG3_F1 and PTFG3_M5, addressed this topic a little bit. We end up never getting much information about what's actually going on. I also agree with PTFG3_F1, when she said that it is noted that there is one-, countries that end up benefiting more than others. Germany, of course, and France. And perhaps the principles - which are there, with which the EU was created, eventually changed a little to a more economical, and not so much on mutual aid that existed, peacekeeping, that existed before.

M: Let me just interrupt you, PTFG3_F3. And why do you think that on that scale, where on one side... Oh, I don't remember what you said anymore. Why do you think that mutual aid was left behind?

PTFG3_F3: I think there are measures that suit more or benefit some countries more than others. (short pause) In this way, the EU ends up... Ends with, with the principles by which it was idealized, so to speak. I think it becomes much more about the economy and interests than the mutual aid and the other values. I don't know if I answered the question.

M: Yes, yes, yes, it was just for you to develop more this question that I found interesting. I don't know if you were going to say something else...

PTFG3_F3: Yes, I was going to talk about the advantages. I think there are, as PTFG3_M5 said, the ease of traveling (short pause), I think it also brought economic progress and led to the development of the country, which we know that, let's say we were quite underdeveloped there in the 70s and we made a lot of progress in a short time and I think the EU ended up helping-, from the moment we entered, the European Union leveraged us a bit of progress.

And disadvantages, the lack of transparency. The overestimation of the economic interests of some countries. And perhaps the lack of adequacy of some measures to the contexts of each country. Because it's a lot of countries, it's not, and maybe some measures don't make sense to some, but they do for others. I guess that's it.

M: So only briefly, now taking this last point, in your opinion, the lack of adequacy of some measures that make sense in some countries, but which do not in others. Why do you think that happens? Briefly.

PTFG3_F3: I think all countries are different and (short pause), and however general they are, the goals, it is almost impossible for everyone to be able to adapt to them. I don't know if... I think it's complex for everyone to achieve the goals.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. I give the floor to PTFG3_F6.

PTFG3_F6: Yes, well, curiously, I think I'm going to be a little more positive, because I'm not that negative about the European Union. Indeed, the free movement of people, the free market, European funds, representative democracy, it all means a lot to me. And that is why, realizing the shortcomings that were pointed out in this discussion, and realizing, of course, the various positions in relation to the European Union. Indeed, I think these four things that I have talked about now, the free movement of people, the free market, mean a lot to me in the sense that-. Just by setting an example, we learned today that, for example, that the European Union, and we are talking about now, PTFG3_M5 spoke here a little bit about the issue of capitalism and (short pause) and the question of the EU being much more of a monetary thing and of being much more of a monetary policy thing, which someone has also spoken, we have learned today that the European Union will make available 55.6 million to combat the sanitary emergency, in relation to the pandemic we live in, only for Portugal. Effectively, these kinds of things, to me, mean a lot.

Therefore, belonging to the European Union... I think that one of the advantages that brings us effectively, in addition to integration into a set of countries, it brings us here hmm a little leeway in terms of balance of payments, in economic terms effectively, brings us many benefits. I understand the points that were mentioned here about more community aspects, but effectively... I’m more positive and I’m very grateful that Portugal belongs to the European Union because I effectively believe that it has already brought us and continues to bring many positive things to the country and to the citizens who reside here.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. Quickly to move on to the next stage, if you had to enumerate disadvantages, if you were forced to do so, what disadvantages would you point out?

PTFG3_F6: Well, disadvantages?

M: Disadvantages or more negative aspects, or less good ones...

PTFG3_F6: Of course, of course. Hmm I think [laughs]... For me, there it is, I am a little positive and it’s difficult for me here..., but maybe, and I can give here-, perhaps being part of the European Union, we have a limit, a margin of governance that may be limited, but this-, I do not have much knowledge about this, but it may have to be one of the disadvantages, this margin of governance may be limited by some European laws and other aspects as well. While sometimes this may not actually work as a disadvantage, the limitation..., but yes, I would point this out if I had to list a disadvantage.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. So, we'd go through-, I think you guys were pretty incisive, I don't think it's worth exploring a little deeper some of the things that you raised, we're going to do it later. And so, we move on to the next phase of the discussion. Here I will present you with a scenario, a hypothetical scenario, and we will discuss it. So, the hypothetical scenario is this: imagine that there is a major natural disaster, such as an earthquake, a major flood, a large forest fire, something like that, in one of the countries of the European Union, not in your own country, in another country of the European Union. How do you think-, and now I will ask you several questions, you can answer one, you can answer all of them, you can answer only what you find most relevant-, so how do you think the EU, the European Union itself, should react to this scenario? How do you think the other EU countries, i.e., countries within the EU, but as individual countries should react to this scenario? And how should Portugal react in this scenario? The issues are quite (short pause) overlapping, so to speak, but we want to explore this idea of the EU and countries possibly having different reactions and see what you think about this. So, to imagine this natural disaster scenario in an EU country, no matter which, and how these three levels should react. So now I open the floor to registrations. I don't know if we have volunteers to move forward. (short pause) Ok we have the registration of PTFG3_F1, and while PTFG3_F1 speaks, I appealed to more registrations. Go ahead, PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: Hmm I think in this case the role of the EU would be a little more like hmm (short pause) an organizing center, so to speak. In other words, given that it knows the reality and is aware of the reality of the various countries, the EU could try to make a plan for how to allocate resources to help the country in crisis, in this case an environmental catastrophe. And then the other countries should, there should be a (short pause)... The other EU countries? Hmm didn't get it... [She is referring to a message sent to the zoom chat]

M: Just to clarify, PTFG3_M5 asked what the three levels were, and I was just helping PTFG3_M5 out {in the chat}.

PTFG3_F1: I didn't get her message, I'm sorry. So, I think that this allocation of resources should be with agreement between all countries, but through this assessment, the countries that have more resources and more capability would be those that are more active in helping the country to combat the environmental catastrophe. And in this case, Portugal would react as it could and according to its possibilities-. I think inaction is not a hypothesis hmm, but that's it, I think there should be planning at the level of the EU as a whole.

[00:30:30]

M: So, PTFG3_F1, would you prefer that in this case, in the event of a disaster, that it should be an integrated EU response?

PTFG3_F1: Yes. Of course, we should not let the countries have no say in this, I think everyone should come to an agreement to know how they would act, but I think that there should, actually be an action plan that is centered on the EU.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. We now have PTFG3_M5 speaking. Go ahead, PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M5: Hmm, I also think it's a bit in that sense, but also, if I'm not wrong, Portugal in the eyes of the EU is seen as the Iberian Peninsula, isn't it?

M: Is that a question, PTFG3_M5?

PTFG3_M5: Yes, yes.

M: No, Portugal has a formal existence in the EU and Spain is another entity, another country... They are countries that have had processes- even though we have entered at the same time, we had different processes of joining the EU.

PTFG3_M5: Okay, hmm. Okay, so in my point of view, I share PTFG3_F1's opinion. There must be a plan for action, whatever it is, for reinforcement, of whatever, coming from the EU. And, hmm (short pause), no action is not an option either, either by the EU, from other countries, nor from Portugal. In my view, Portugal, and the other countries within the European Union, so through the European Union and through the different resources of the countries, hmm together, to come together and provide what is necessary, depending on the disaster and depending on the resources that each country has. And I think that would be a much easier way to act. I guess that's it. And there it is, the whole country, for me too, all countries would have to act. There are always resources that- so that would be the Union.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. I now give the floor to PTFG3_M2. Go ahead.

PTFG3_M2: Well, I think on this issue and on this... on this particular issue, the factor of which country is affected would most likely influence what kind of aid it would be given and how soon it would be handed out. I am almost sure that it would be different, for example, for Portugal to have one of these fires, probably one of the countries of the European Union, Spain that is closer culturally and politically to Portugal to giving humanitarian aid. But for example, that same Spain would not give that same aid so soon to a country further north in Europe, and therefore - or countries closer to the eastern countries. In other words, I believe that there would be a duality of criteria depending on the country. Having said that, I believe that the solution, as is logical, should happen as soon as possible and concerted with the other countries. In other words, it should be a decision taken as soon as possible and with the representatives of the countries, because the European Union should also be working for this. I believe that, at the same time, we should not prevent unilateral international support from members of the European Union itself. Because in times of crisis, I don't think any country should deny or suggest the denial of support. In other words, to have support concerted by the European Union, but at the same time safeguarding those other countries can and should support individually, even from those that are share institutional relations with the other countries.

M: PTFG3_M2, you mentioned this that there could be duality of criteria and all that, and I just wanted you to briefly, do you think that this duality of criteria would apply also in case of a natural disaster?

PTFG3_M2: It depends on the public pressure, that the press... would make. I believe that there is a whole context around it, it also depends on who the policy makers are also, it also depends on the institutional relations that these countries have or haven’t with the countries, whether they are partners. That is, there are several factors that I can think of, and answering directly to the question, even in the event of a catastrophe, would be taken into account. That is, this idealized idea that we are all friends, we are all brothers, hmm... I don't buy it.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M2. So, I now give the floor to PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F3: I think that in a disaster situation, the first thing that should happen is to try to reach a joint decision between the various countries that make up the Union to know how to act, what is the best way. I believe that the EU should contribute funds, and the other countries with humanitarian aid. I agree with what PTFG3_M2 said of being able to accept foreign aid, I think that in times of catastrophe all help is welcome. So, I think it should be accepted as well.

M: You made a reference, and it wasn't just you, I think all of you who have talked about it so far have made it. In the coordinated response at European Union level, briefly, what do you think, you don't have to go into the technicalities, just the principles of it, what do you think it would take for something like this to happen? This coordination, more centralized at the EU level.

PTFG3_F3: Bring together the representatives of each country, so to speak. Hmm of course there will always be an overlap of hierarchies, isn't it? From the outset, when there's a collective decision, there's always going to be someone, a leader, or a mentor, so to speak. But I also think that countries can say how willing they are to help, although ideally, we should all be willing to help a country that belongs to the same Union as us and needs help. But I think that at the outset all countries should say how willing they are to help and how they can help. And that's it.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. I give the floor to PTFG3_F6 and then PTFG3_M4 will speak.

PTFG3_F6: I think in this case of an emergency, you talked about a natural disaster, didn't you? It was the example that is at the outset of this. First, I fully agree when it was said that inaction is not an option. I wouldn't say better. But then there are several ways to act. In my view, there should be a kind of social concertation here, in which the affected country has a set of, has a set of requirements, has a set of needs, and eventually the European Union... whether through European funds in the form of grants, or donations of medical equipment and other ways... I effectively think that the solution would be something like this.

Regarding the issue that PTFG3_M2 raised, it seems very pertinent to me. The question that it depends on which country that is {affected}, hmm and effectively the aid that would be given always depends on the country that is affected, hmm and really, basically that's it. It has to do with a kind of concertation: there would be needs, there would be capabilities, and it would have to somehow cross paths so that there would be a balance here.

[00:40:02]

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. Before moving on to PTFG3_M4, you and PTFG3_M2 also talked about this issue of duality of criteria, didn't you? Now, you said it was a pertinent question. I wanted you to develop that more. Why do you think that happens? Whether it exists or not? You might even think it doesn't exist.

PTFG3_F6: I was saying that it is a pertinent issue to be raised. I personally believe that all the countries that are part of this Union, I want to believe that they are all the same and that they would all be, that they would all be helped in the same way. If that really happens, if it really happened... we are speculating here, possibly countries with more economic capacity, maybe... or... the duality criteria, there it is, more economic capacity, more resources, could eventually helped more. In fact, be helped more than those who don’t have so many resourced. But there it is, we are here speculating, aren’t we? What would happen if -, what would happen if they were...

M: We're here in a speculative scenario, so don't be afraid to go that way.

PTFG3_F6: Okay, okay.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. I don't know if you're done yet.

PTFG3_F6: Yes, I'm done. I'm sorry [laughs].

M: It’s ok [laughs], GONGALO. I give the floor to PTFG3_M4.

PTFG3_M4: So, hmm in case of a catastrophe, really, we are always talking about a country and a population that is in urgent need of help, I think that when it comes to Portugal, Portugal should always help in any way it can. Even if it's sending resources. And as regards to the European Union, I think the EU must take this solidarity project forward. I think there should be an emergency meeting between the leaders of all the countries that are part of the European Union and there should be a support or reinforcement plan to help the country and the population. I think that's the most important thing.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M4. This was a (short pause) issue that you talked about, that you all talked about, actually, and I want you to explore it a little more. Which is this idea of proportionality. You said that some countries could contribute more because they have more, whether it's economic resources, be it human resources, whatever it is, and I don't know if you want to develop this issue of proportionality within the EU more. Should it exist? Do you think it exists? Of course, we are talking here about a hypothetical case of a natural disaster, but if you have any opinions on this issue of proportionality, and the fact that some countries can contribute more, and the difference between could and should, you can go ahead. (long pause) If they don't have any {opinions}, we can move forward too. Okay, we have more registrations, we have PTFG3_F1, and we have PTFG3_F3. I give the floor to PTFG3_F1, and I appeal only to your sense of brevity so that we can move on to the next phase. Go ahead, PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: I just wanted to say that hmm, this division of tasks, so to speak, could be through the financial capacity of each country. Because I think that this financial capacity is different for every country in the European Union. And also as to the amount of resources available, because if there was a country, which despite having a great economic capacity, couldn’t, for example, send doctors or firefighters, because it was going through a crisis or something like that in the country itself that prevented this from happening, there should be all this management and to evaluate what resources were available and how they should be used to help the country that was going through the climate catastrophe.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F3: I don’t think we can demand the same support from all countries, because of course not everyone can help in the same way. Because not everyone has the same capabilities and resources, as PTFG3_F1 said. Therefore, it would depend on the contribution, it would depend on the capacity and resources available.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. So, we still have PTFG3_M5. Okay, as I said in the chat, we are now closing the registration for this round on the natural disaster scenario, and we move on to the next phase after PTFG3_M5 is finished speaking.

PTFG3_M5: I agree with their idea, that they talked. That that should be proportionality, however on a real level, without much knowledge, I bet it would not be {so}, and I bet that it would be measured very well which country had suffered the catastrophe or not, which country is, yes or no. Hmm the founding countries end up having more perks, the ones with more robust economies end up having more perks. And I think that it should also be considered that there is a whole process of evolution and of gaining this more stable structure, economic or whatever, so that all different countries could, even over time, actually contribute more. But in my view, things must be extremely proportional to what is the reality of countries, and I do not know if that is actually the case. Really. I'm not aware, but I bet... That's my opinion.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. So, we go to the next phase. We're talking about another hypothetical scenario. But I think we still have time. Just a matter of (short pause) Just out of curiosity. Would you, by any chance, still in this scenario of natural disaster, would you feel some kind of individual responsibility? Maybe responsibility is a bad term. But keeping this term of individual responsibility in a broad sense, to help with a personal contribution, or whatever, you think was necessary in this hypothetical scenario of natural disaster in a country other than yours? Within the European Union. I don't know if any of you want to add {something}. If not, we'd move on to the next phase.

PTFG3_M2: Can I?

M: Go ahead.

PTFG3_M2: Well, I don’t trust it, because in this kind of catastrophe what is created are charities to help countries, and that always smells sour to me. When charity is triggered, it always raises suspicion. I would rather demand that my government have a supporting role, i.e. I would rather make demands to my elected politicians to hmm claim that role than to believe in the good faith of these institutions. Because there it is, helping a country in catastrophe, we can't just-, that is, the only way that I would believe that this money would be well used would be to send it to the country itself and to its governing entities. And there's no way to make a bank transfer to the French ministry of internal affairs, I don't know, for example. I don't know if I can understand that point of view. I mean, I don't even trust, within my own country, in that view of helping to solve the problems of the poor {sarcasm} and this idea of charity and so on.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M2. I don't know if anyone else wants to add anything. If anyone wants to, it must be brief. It must be brief. Go ahead, PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M5: I would feel responsible, but from the point of view of -, as a human being. There are situations that are not the fault of anyone other than the "human" [the speaker makes gestures with her arms in the shape of a circle]. This, too, I am also associating this cause, this natural disaster, something that is most likely a result of global warming. In that sense I would feel responsibility, yes. Do I trust the institutions? I don't know, I know that in political terms, and even in humanitarian action and everything, hmm these policies and everything that happens, it must happen when these things happen, effectively there is help and there are people of good faith who want to-, and there are also institutions of good faith, and there can actually be all kinds of help and that people like me who may even feel responsibility, they could even go {help}, for example. But it's an individual point of view.

[00:50:30]

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. Okay, if no one else wants to develop this subject a little bit further, we'll move on to the second scenario.

So once again we are dealing with a hypothetical scenario, and therefore imagine the following situation: If an economic crisis, of the kind of crisis we had in the European Union not so long ago, such as the Euro crisis, would happen again within the European Union, and some countries were adversely or negatively affected differently to other countries, For example, to your country, how do you think or feel that your country should react in such a situation?

PTFG3_M2: Can I go ahead?

M: Sure, PTFG3_M2. Go ahead.

PTFG3_M2: If no one wants to speak first... Okay, I believe that I am not opposed to anything that my country, if the damage is notorious compared to the treatment and practical results in the lives of the people of other countries, that my country hmm abandons the European Union itself in order to safeguard its interests. Because this idea of belonging to a collective, cannot disrespect the sovereignty that each country has to decide what policies are to be implemented within its own country. In other words, one cannot start from the (short pause) premise that what the largest countries and those with the most influence within the European Union decide, and the others have to eat it up and shut up as if it were nothing.

That said, you also need to evaluate the context, don't you? I don’t argue this because there is a specific policy that damages, in one area or another, the treatment that Portugal has, but that at the same time even benefits the country in other policies, that a debate is created on the exit of the European Union, from that point of view. At the same time, the exit may not be the only option. There is a whole path of questions that can be asked, international indications, attempts to negotiate from this point of view. That is, I spoke of the exit as a resolution that is not triggered inevitably.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M2…

PTFG3_F6: M, can I just ask you to clarify the scenario that you're proposing?

M: What do you mean?

PTFG3_F6: If you can explain the scenario, if you can repeat it, I couldn't...

M: The scenario...

PTFG3_F6: The idea of the scenario...

M: Yes, yes. The scenario we are discussing here is an economic crisis. An economic crisis that affects some countries more than others and how our country should react to this scenario within the European Union.

PTFG3_M2, in a way, in his talk has already reversed the question a bit, and did so for justifiable reasons, didn't he? It is usually Portugal that has crises-, Portugal being simplistic, which had a crisis quite recently and, therefore, this is expected. But the question was different: if it happens IN ANOTHER country than ours-, [laughs] we will reverse Portugal’s history in the European Union a little bit. Happening in a country other than our own, how do you think that Portugal, as a government, as a community, as a society, should act against this scenario.

But you can also speak from the perspective that PTFG3_M2 has introduced, of being Portugal, your country, the center of the crisis. But the initial question was the opposite, if this was to happen in another country, how would you expect your country, government, etc., to act in the face of this crisis. And that's it, I don't know if there's more... Go ahead, PTFG3_F6.

PTFG3_F6: Can I? I don't know, PTFG3_M5 signed up at the same time, so if she wants to talk, I'm sorry. [PTFG3_M5 makes OK sign]. Ok [laughs]. I think that on this issue, if it were another country to be affected, I think Portugal should, as a country-. Crises affect countries differently, and there is no crisis in history that has affected all countries equally. And I think it's a little bit of a hmm-, it's not a responsibility, but what Portugal is supposed to do is cooperate with the European Union, so that, as they did with us when the resolution of the crisis we had in 2008, the other countries, do a little bit of what they did to us in, in this case, in 2011, we do what they did to us. The other countries that were better than us, cooperated with the European Union to try to help the country to overcome the crisis even more. I think that Portugal's role in this case is not a properly individual role, but always to cooperate with the European Union, which is what the EU is here for, hmm so that this is possible. Send help as they sent here and etc.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. We then have PTFG3_M5’s registration, and we have no one else. So, I appealed to your voluntaristic sense to move forward. So, PTFG3_M5 go ahead.

PTFG3_M5: Hmm, PTFG3_M2 raised a very interesting question: freedom, a little more independence, government decision-making with the European Union. I think that's very interesting. Hmm and although hmm I agree with the cooperative spirit of “ah ok there is a crisis, see the context, see everything else too, hmm and give that support, all right, for the country to prosper.” In fact, we want everyone, all member states, we want everyone else to thrive, supposedly, at least. So, in that sense, I think Portugal should help, as well as when it needs help, it should ask for it. And yet I still have this view that of, at least Portugal, of each Member State, {should} have a little more freedom of choice. Maybe I was also applying a little bit to the previous question, maybe a little bit about resources, and everything else, but certainly support.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. So, we have PTFG3_F3, and I do not know if PTFG3_F1 and PTFG3_M4 want to say something on this round on this subjec... If you want, just sign up in the chat or you can use the zoom hand thing. So, I give the floor to PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F3: I agree with PTFG3_F6 and also with what PTFG3_M5 said. I really think we should cooperate with the EU so as not to leave the country on its own. I think it applies, what we said a while ago. Inaction, being that we are inserted in a community, I do not think it makes sense not to act. I also think that aid should be proportionate, once again as we said in the case of the disaster, to what the country can provide to others, or with what it can help.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. So, if I'm not mistaken it was just, it was only PTFG3_F3 that was registered. But now I will ask a slightly more difficult question and I imagine that it's going to trigger some debate. If your country receives financial support, as it has received from other countries of the European Union, do you think that the country should be subject to certain restrictions or conditionalities that can accompany this aid, what do you think? However, I don't know if PTFG3_M4 wanted to speak.

PTFG3_M4: I wanted to sign up for that point you're talking about, yes.

M: Ok then. But that's it, consider this issue. What do you think of this issue of certain countries, including yours, being subject to rules or restrictions in the context of external aid? And I give the floor to PTFG3_M4.

[01:00:32]

PTFG3_M4: Touching on the point you just talked about, I think, clearly as it was said, Portugal when it needs help should ask for help, as we did not long ago this because of the crisis, where really came financial help from outside. But those obligations-, technically Portugal-, then the government at the time too, what was done and supposedly many of the ORDERS that came from outside harmed many Portuguese. That is, poverty increased, there was a great-, the poverty statistics reverted back to the ones in the last century. Therefore, I think that when it comes to restrictions, Portugal should have a choice, because-, so as not to happen what happened-. I think there had to be an opportunity for choice so as not to repeat again what happened. The government at the time had a lot of influence... on what happened in Portugal. But I think Portugal should have an opportunity to choose and have the opening of negotiation so that no more people are harmed again and not to have an increase in poverty as happened in the last time this financial aid was requested. So, I think there should be a negotiation opportunity and an opportunity to choose too

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M4. So, we have PTFG3_M5, PTFG3_F1 and PTFG3_F6. I give the floor to PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M5: Okay, I also agree a lot with this idea. No, conditions. Conditions? What are the conditions? No, we shouldn't be willing to accept any conditions in return-, because we need help. Like, I think things have to be completely balanced, hmm and there it is, also picking up on the previous point of the country having more freedom also within the European Union, so it is in that sense. So...

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. I give the floor to PTFG3_F1 and then to PTFG3_F6.

PTFG3_F1: I hmm, I have been-, I'm in agreement with what has been said so far. I think there should be flexibility in the negotiation and speaking of what happened in Portugal with the Troika, hmm I think that all those austerity policies to which we were subjected, in this case were not beneficial, and that there could have been an agreement that would allow another way to solve the crisis as long as we could get give the money that was lent to us. Hmm and really, I think that since the guarantee of return of these, of the loans, that there should not be certain impositions, which in my opinion even hindered the economic recovery and consequent return of money to the European Central Bank.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. I now give the floor to PTFG3_F6.

PTFG3_F6: Well, here on this question, answering your question at the outset, if I had to answer yes or no, I would answer yes, there have to be conditions. There has to be conditions for a number of reasons, but what goes through my mind now is that no one actually lends money-, first no one gives anything to anyone with nothing in return and without a guarantee. And then, there it is, there is always negotiating power. The problem with what happened in 2011 is that the negotiation was poorly done. And then the proposed conditions, of course, that always have to be negotiated, and they were, only that the negotiation were badly done. These are completely different things: there are no conditions or negotiated conditions. Indeed, (short pause), with this I am not saying that, as someone said that there should be no conditions, I am saying that in fact the conditions all have to be negotiated.

The specific problem for Portugal is that they were very poorly negotiated. And I think one of the problems that, your question, in relation to your question, the problem is not that there are conditions, it’s how these conditions are agreed. And that's it. I guess that's it. I think my point is much more about-. The question would be much more debatable whether-, what negotiations should exist for such conditions, than whether it makes sense to have conditions or not. Because making sense of conditions, I think it always does. Being well or badly negotiated is the real question. About here the fund negotiations and loan negotiations etc.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F3: I agree that there are conditions because obviously we are receiving help and support, and this does not come without some kind of guarantee. However, I think that the country should also impose its limits, that is, not to submit to everything and not to lose a little bit of its sovereignty. And in a way also hmm, in view of this, if the Union is not willing to help, eventually leave. Because I also think it is very important to maintain sovereignty and I do not think we should submit to everything.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F6: Can I just, can I just give an input here?

M: Yes, go ahead.

PTFG3_F6: Just to add here...

M: Yes, yes, yes.

PTFG3_F6: Another issue that we should-, which in my opinion, and my opinion may be biased or not, but one issue that we should also consider when talking about loans and this transfer of funds and subsequent payments, is the issue of opportunity costs! Okay, I had that cost when they lent me money, but what would be the cost if they hadn't lent it to me? And I think there's also something that can be seen here as-, okay I had those costs because I negotiated {foreign aid}, but what would be the cost to my country if I hadn't had that loan? And I think it's very important that we understand-, and I honestly think, this is a very personal opinion now, because there it is, let's go back to the field of speculation. The cost of not lending us that money would be MUCH higher than the cost we had in receiving that money. And that's it. I just wanted to add this, in a thought, one of which we understand the question of having costs, when money is lent to us, but what would be the cost of not lending us the money? And I think here, and this is my opinion, the cost of not accepting that money would have been much higher than the cost we actually had in having the IMF and the Troika here and so on.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. So, we have two sides here, shall we say, to be simplistic. There are people who said no to conditions and others who say yes to conditions. And I want you to explore this briefly, so that we could move on to the next stage, why yes to conditions and/or no to conditions. Why you think there must be conditions and why do you think there should be no conditions. I don't know if you feel comfortable exploring this scenario... So ok, we have PTFG3_M5, and we have PTFG3_F3. I give the floor to PTFG3_M5, but quickly! If you could be quick, I'd appreciate it.

PTFG3_M5: Hmm, I don't know if I was clear about my previous opinion. However, hmm, conditions (short pause) yes... BUT what are the conditions? And if the conditions don’t satisfy people, this if there is negotiation and the conditions don’t satisfy people, then things have to be well stipulated. However, I also think that part of the good principle, if there is any help and if the conditions are few or reduced, but the thing has its return, I also don’t see why not. This can also be part of another way of negotiating, whatever you want. I’m finished.

[01:10:23]

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. I give the floor to PTFG3_F3, and PTFG3_F1 will finish. I don't know if anyone else wants to say anything about this. If not, we will finish with PTFG3_F1. Go ahead, PTFG3_F3.

PTFG3_F3: So, I fully agree with what PTFG3_M5 said. I think there has to be conditions, because that's what I said earlier: we're asking for a loan now and we have to give some kind of guarantee, and no one's going to lend it to us without giving that kind of guarantee. However, what are the conditions that are {on the table}. And I think that's where we can diverge a little bit. I think that's the crux of the matter, I think they }{conditions} have to be stipulated and depending on the conditions, understand whether or not we move forward with them.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. I give the floor to PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: I also think that there should be conditions, because as has been said by several people here, no one lends money without guarantees that they will get it back. But having said that, I do not think that the European Union should impose policies on the country to which it lends money. There must be freedom for the country to present a plan to return the borrowed money, and as long as there is that guarantee, and through negotiation, I think the loans can be made. I don’t think it has to be a one-sided thing on the part of the European Union.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. I don't think anyone else is registered, if not... last chance! Think about what PTFG3_F6 said [laughs]. If not, we'll move on to the third scenario. So once again we are dealing with a speculative scenario, so to speak, and I’ll introduce a new issue for you to discuss. Therefore, considering that there are inequalities between countries and between people within the same country, should the European Union have a program, or common funds to reduce these social inequalities? Yes, or no? And, obviously, justify your choice. I don't know if anyone wants to throw themselves at the wolves first... Okay, we've got PTFG3_M5 and PTFG3_F1. So, PTFG3_M5 go ahead.

PTFG3_M5: ( ) I think it’s much more interesting for countries to make a plan of their social needs and everything, then propose it to the European Union, and the European Union then hmm, helps or not. Or there is a negotiation so as to... That's it. Concise, brief.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. We move on to PTFG3_F1. Please, register to speak.

PTFG3_F1: Yes. I think the assessment of the needs of each country should come from the government of the country itself. But then there must be a union of efforts, and perhaps, I do not know if this is the most appropriate expression that I can use, but a support network has to come together between the countries with a union, a union of the various resources that there are in the countries, to be able to respond to the problems that each country presents. And I also think-, that this is one of the objectives for which the European Union was formed.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. We now have PTFG3_M4 and then PTFG3_F6. Go ahead, PTFG3_M4.

PTFG3_M4: Okay, in my opinion, to be very brief as well, I think that countries should survey the problems they have, and especially regarding the issue of inequalities. Then it should be presented to the European Union and then try to negotiate a plan, so that, in fact, the EU and the other countries in the Union can actually act.

M: And PTFG3_M4 how, for example, and you were not the only one who made this point, PTFG3_M5 also it, this idea of being the country presenting a kind of plan: “these are our needs, how would the EU act on it”. How do you think the EU should react, when for example, and we had this scenario relatively recently, when another country says, "no, no, sorry about that, but we’re not going to help with that. We have nothing to do with this. The EU should not help with this. By the way, the EU is funded by all member states, and we are not available to help." How do you think the EU should act in such situations, in this potential conflict?

PTFG3_M4: Like you said, we had a case like that not so long ago, exactly. I think the European Union should go to the very limit when it comes to negotiations. Because I think that, especially now that we are touching on the point of inequality, the European Union really has to take this solidarity project to its end-, this equality project, forward and I think that the negotiations should be taken as far as possible so that there is unanimity between the countries to act.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M4.

PTFG3_F6: M, I signed up, but in the meantime, we've already touched on the issues I was going to raise. When PTFG3_F1 spoke she touched on the points I was going to address, so...

M: If you want, you can go ahead…

PTFG3_F6: Yes. I agree. And I fully agree with PTFG3_M5, with that diagnosis of needs that you talked about, so that there would be... Oh, man, I'm sorry, but I have the word concertation in my mind today, but I'm going to it say again [laughs], so that there would be a concertation here taking into account the needs, taking into account the demand, and offering that-, of what is possible. Hmm needs, by what is possible, so that there is concertation here and the consensus to achieve common goals. I think that's the goal of the European Union, they're common goals. Make a diagnosis of hmm needs, solutions, and then find the balance and find what is possible to do and what is not possible to do.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. So, Now I give the floor to PTFG3_M2.

PTFG3_M2: Before speaking, I have to ask, are there many more segments to do? It's just that I'm hungry [laughs]. Secondly, on the European Union itself and on what is being debated. The European Union itself should know that there are social problems that are common to all countries. You don't have to survey countries to know that the social and pandemic crisis has created what is an economic crisis, right? It’s not supposed to go knocking on the doors of other countries and ask that question. Of course, it has to be done and there will certainly still be some countries, some specific sectors that will have a set of areas of the economy and social areas that have been affected in very specific and very concrete ways, taking into account the characteristics of each country.

However, there are problems that are common to the Europeans themselves and then I think that the answers should be somewhat identical. That is, to have two groups of answers: identical answers for all countries, globalizing, and when I say identical it’s also taking into account what is the cost of living of each country and what are the wages of each country, and therefore the answers should be divided in an equitable and not in an egalitarian form, in this point of view. And then there it is, the very issues that the country itself suffers and ( ). For example, support for the threatened coastline, it seems to me that it makes sense that Portugal and Spain have here a targeted support, very different to other countries, such as the German case, which have less coastline than the Iberian Peninsula. It makes no sense to have funds for countries that then do not need them, or that are not suitable for what is the context of each country. And having said this, I'll ask M again, what's it going to be?

M: We’re almost done, we’re almost done. So hmm, PTFG3_F3, I do not know if PTFG3_F3 wants to add something, but I’ll introduced-, but before PTFG3_F3 speaks, I’ll introduce another topic. Then PTFG3_F3, you can respond to the new topic or the previous one, but they are related. So, going more specifically into the social question. We talk about social inequalities, but now we’ll discuss a specific topic within the social problem, so to speak. Do you think, or what you think of, the possibility of the European Union of having a European regime, a centralized regime, coordinated by European Union, to deal with the problem of unemployment in the EU countries. And that it will be financed by the member states. Plus, do you think it should exist? Should the EU play a role in reducing unemployment in all countries? Would you be available to support it even if, for example, it would mean higher costs for your country? I don't know if PTFG3_F3 wanted to speak earlier.

[01:21:31]

PTFG3_F3: From the previous topic I think, I think, I agree with basically everything that was said, I have nothing to add. As for the creation of a regime... You can just repeat it, it's a regime...

M: A scheme, a regime, a mechanism...

PTFG3_F3: As you said now, as has been said a while ago, I think it was PTFG3_M2, countries have all needs that are equal, and other countries that suffer more from them {needs}, or that have more capacity to solve them, so I think if this (short pause), I think countries should help depending on their ability, if they wanted to, and it should be a liberal choice, i.e. countries decide whether or not to join and finance such a hmm scheme. I don't think it should be something imposed hmm, and I think each one, depending on what the country could-. I think it should be, you should take into account the costs of living, the wages, the contributions are in accordance with what each country can help and bear.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F3. I don't know if we have any more registrations. But basically, what was it- maybe I wasn't very clear when I introduced the topic. Therefore, whether there is this potential scheme-. Moreover, it is not even potential, the European Union is considering this possibility at the moment. Of a scheme-, let's call it a scheme, let's call it a European mechanism for supporting unemployment. Would you be available for such a thing, even if it would entail additional costs? Imagine taxes, image whatever. It's not worth getting too attached to technical terms and technical specifics. We are talking about the question of principles. Okay, so we have PTFG3_F1 signing up and PTFG3_M5. Go ahead, PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: Hmm I think in this respect I will disagree a little bit with what PTFG3_F3 said, because the European Union was formed to be able to address the inequalities that existed within countries and to improve living conditions. So, if there was a development of a mechanism to ensure that there would be less unemployment and therefore better living conditions for the people of the European Union, I think it should-, countries that wanted to remain in the European Union and wanted, or wanted to join, should be committed to this objective. Because it is one of the pillars that led to the formation of these agreements between the various European countries. So, if you don’t want to contribute to one of these main objectives, I don’t know if they will be, they {the countries that don’t want to join} will be a good... a good attribute within the European Union.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F1. Hmm so we have PTFG3_M5, I don’t know if anyone else wants to contribute to the discussion... Go ahead, PTFG3_M5.

PTFG3_M5: So, hmm this MECHANISM, I, I, briefly, it would be interesting to know what it is really -, if effectively, if this training really covers everyone. What are the impacts? The predictions? The consequences, and all that? Because if it's training for everyone, everyone's going to profit from training, no, isn't it? I don't have a theme either, I can't get one like that. And if in five to ten years, everyone, or if {someone} is specialized in some field, something that even {this person} likes, and get his life together, and gets some direction [shrugs]... Now if that implies, and if people-. I would like for example in this situation to have, for example, a vote, for the population itself to vote on it. "Am I willing to pay more taxes for this program?" Also, because maybe, it doesn't cover {everyone}, and in that case, and considering the costs, and maybe also hmm (short pause). I think my position was hmm, without seeing the program, which is difficult for me... Also, there it is, I don't have a position, but without measuring costs, okay, no doubt, no doubt. Because the country itself can enjoy and must enjoy this freedom that it has as a government and as a country to, in other ways, bring training and specialize its citizens in some other way, for example. The country itself can find its own mechanism, so. (long pause) That's it.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. Hmm, in the meantime I think no one else has signed up, I don't know if anyone else wants to make further contributions... If you don’t, we’ll move on to the next stage, and LAST, the last stage! No? No one wants to add anything else? Explore this cost issue a little more, for example.

PTFG3_F6: I can just give it a quick contribution here. This is a bit like the talk of (funds?), I'm not willing to give money if I don't actually see any results or guarantees...

M: Just, just interrupt. I'm sorry, what we're discussing here is a very simple question. It is an unemployment fund, an unemployment fund at European level.

PTFG3_F6: Right. Well, at the outset I think (short pause) having this scheme, this model, hmm would have to be analyzed very carefully on what it is, what are the economic benefits that this would bring. Because there are several ways to combat unemployment, and (short pause), various forms and those incur various costs, and so I think that-. Everything is dependent on the benefit that would entail to every citizen, every country, every nation. It was just to add something [laughs].

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. So, we have PTFG3_F1. Go ahead PTFG3_F1.

PTFG3_F1: What I'm about to say is very brief. About costs, if it were something momentary, I think this cost disadvantage would be somewhat momentary. Because if we're going to do it later-, I figure that then those people who are being supported get a job, then it's going to be something which will be beneficial in the long run. It may have some costs in the short and medium term, but then it will eventually compensate.

PTFG3_M2: And it is also necessary to understand whether these costs, if them translate into improvements in what is the effective the quality of life of people, right? Then people will have the opportunity to have more and better salaries. You'll have a chance. I dunno! If it translates into improvements in the indexes of what is the quality of life of people. Not only are costs just because, based on spending only, but on concrete results in people's lives.

[01:30:20]

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M2 and thank you, PTFG3_F1. So, we come to the last phase. So today we have been discussing issues relating to the European Union. We covered different topics and different areas, such as social disparities, the economic crisis, etc. Do you think that there are other areas that you consider relevant when we talk about these issues of country relations in the European Union that are relevant from that perspective? Do you think there is any other topic that hasn’t been addressed in this discussion and that is important?

(long pause)

PTFG3_M2: I think it would make sense, when talking about the European Union, to talk about, for example, the ERASMUS program too, at least it's something for this age group, the way it’s built and the benefits it has or hasn’t. We could talk about the defense of the European Union itself and this SILLY idea of creating a European army. Hmm, I think it's the issues that are in the center-. Oh! What about the institutions themselves? What is the knowledge people have about the institutions, the European Parliament, the European Commission, who appoints them, why do they appoint them, what does everyone think about those institutions? That said, I don't want to open that debate [laughs], I'm just suggesting...

M: We don't have time for this. Hmm don’t know if anyone else wants to add some other topic that you think is VERY relevant and that hasn’t been addressed.

PTFG3_F6: I think it would be interesting here in this kind of discussion to bring up hmm, and being the European Union a set of democratic countries, we could bring here hmm (short pause), the question of low turnout. I think it can be an interesting debate here in this context, what can the European Union do about low turnout, the lack of involvement in politics, I don't know, it's just a point as you asked for. But it seems interesting to me, abstention, unwillingness to do politics, unwillingness to want to understand politics, unwillingness to want to know how things work. And I think the European Union can play an interesting role here. In this sense that each country, and in all countries.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_F6. Hmm well at last then, do you have any last observation, commentary, reflections, whatever, on the topics discussed here? If you still have issues that you think are important, and that should be addressed, you can go ahead. I got the feeling that PTFG3_M5 wanted to speak, were you enrolled?

PTFG3_M5: I was going to say, I think I'll add too, but it was already talked about, the European Union could also demand, perhaps, some CONDITIONS from the countries to put pressure on them, that is not quite the word, but to make certain targets met and truly discussed with regard to climate change and policies of each individual country, Certainly the European Union seems to me to be an institution that could act on this. Maybe even before the employment.

M: Thank you, PTFG3_M5. No one else? If no one else wants to add anything, we can end the session. Once again thank you for your availability, we thank you very much, immensely. I know sometimes it can be complicated, it's 90 minutes almost two hours here in front of the computer, especially at this critical time of dinner. So, we appreciate your availability.