M: The first question is... or I would ask you to take a piece of paper or some paper, open a loose document on your computer and write down in it what are the first three thoughts that come to your mind when you hear the European Union or the EU. (long pause) If anybody is ready, you can start.

SKFG3_F1: So, I wrote down: PROTECTION, COMMUNITY and FREEDOM.

M: Protection, society and freedom, can you break it down a little bit, please?

SKFG3_F1: Yes, well, clearly, protection - that even though we are, all European countries are, democratic, not every government makes those decisions and... So, I'm glad that we have a European Union that can at least check it a little bit more and that it's not all left in the hands of just one nation, one mentality, but that there are various other things that contribute to checking a little bit what's going on in our country, like... in our Slovakia right now.

M: Mhm, if I may have a follow-up question, which are the nations that control what happens in Slovakia.

SKFG3_F1: Sorry, I can't hear you now.

M: Can you hear me? I would just like to ask which are the nations that are controlling what is happening in Slovakia.

SKFG3_F1: I think, as it were, that the European Union also makes laws that we have to obey, as it were, so that we cannot just do as we please.

M: Mhm, thank you.

SKFG3_F1: I am referring to what is happening in Poland, for example, that the European Union is trying to tell them that it is not going to work. Although it's difficult, but...

M: Mhm, okay, and the other two.

SKFG3_F1: The other one was the community, that it's better when we are more together... And the freedom, in terms of travel and job opportunities and development and so on.

M: Thank you very much, who's next?

SKFG3_F3: Then I can. So, I made a note of the ADVANTAGES, for example. That was the first thing that came to my mind, because I think that the fact that countries are actually part of the European Union, that actually presents quite a lot of different advantages for us, as my colleague has already mentioned, whether in terms of maybe some travel or just overall freedom. Then a related thing that I have noted is actually related to the advantages - certainly the EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, because actually, basically, every single person can go to that court and it is basically a kind of reassurance that you can actually always get some sort of resolution, even if maybe your own country does not exactly want to back you up on it. And the last thing is maybe a little bit simple, but it is the word FAMILY, because I feel that actually all those countries that make up that European Union are maybe a kind of a community or something like that, and they are actually kind of dependent on each other and they are actually able to help each other out there and actually, as the European Union is also aiming to create maybe some kind of equality between those countries, so that there are not some big differences, so maybe that is part of what I meant by that term as well.

M: Thanks a lot, SKFG3_F3.

SKFG3_F3: Thank you, everything.

SKFG3_M4: So, can I? Basically, the ideas that came to my mind with the term European Union, the first one that came to my mind was the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, that is, basically the European Union is made up of several Member States, if I am not mistaken, there should be 27 of them. The next idea that came to my mind is COOPERATION, that is, let us say in the field of law or politics, or in the case of, therefore, assistance to developing countries, or it could be the third idea of SUPPORT, that is, let us say, of some economic aspect, of the development of the economy and of trade, and so on.

M: Thanks a lot.

SKFG3_M5: Can I now. Actually, the words I thought of were EQUALITY, which has already been mentioned here by SKFG3_F3. Then I guess the next one that came to mind was FREEDOM, especially in terms of that travel and actually that all states are democratic and then finally the HELP that SKFG3_M4 has just mentioned here in terms of the economic side of it, to all the states, even especially in times like the corona, that those states helped each other in some of those pandemic situations.

M: Mhm, you can... You mentioned equality as the first idea, can you elaborate on that?

SKFG3_M5: Equality, that they are trying, or I have the feeling that the European Union is trying to make all states equal in that representation, in that parliament, that every state has a say or a position there, that it's not that "those are better and those are worse", that we just have to treat each other as if we are on the same level, whatever we are.

M: Great, thanks a lot. And last SKFG3_M2.

SKFG3_M2: I sort of wrote down the four points roughly along the lines that the Union was basically formed at a time when there was no peace. It was just after two world wars and nobody really knew what was actually going to happen, how it was going to develop, how to prevent basically another catastrophe in the form of another big war on the European continent, so from my point of view the most fundamental thing that the European Union basically guarantees us to some extent is that PEACE, that we really haven't had any war on our continent for over 70 years, basically. Apart from Yugoslavia, that is, but that was a conflict of a slightly different nature and did not escalate into a major pan-European war. In addition, another important aspect, in my opinion, is the ECONOMIC UNION - in fact, the whole community, thanks to which we are able to develop some kind of common market, common trade, and this, in turn, is followed by the harmonization of laws, where, in fact, we can say that we are basically creating some kind of common system thanks to this. We can, as it were, to a certain extent demand respect for similar kinds of rights, and certainly the last of those things is basically a very great contribution or a very great support to the creation of the HUMAN RIGHTS CATALOG, because basically the more states and the larger the community respect certain rights, or in this case human rights, the more chance there is of enforcing them in the event of some kind of conflict. I guess that is how I see it, roughly.

M: SKFG3_M2, thank you very much for your answer. I have another question for all of you: does it mean anything to you that you are European citizens?

SKFG3_M2: So now I might as well get started. It's of great importance, especially the travel, the fact that we can do that and other related fields. So it's not just that we can go without... just with an ID card to any of the countries of the Union for a holiday or whatever. That's actually just like, the very basic, but we have to see it also in terms of that work, that we can also do it very easily - as a European citizen or as a citizen of the European Union, we can very easily get a job in any other country, so that's also very important. And also, as European citizens, we are granted the same human rights, so that is also a very important aspect.

[00:10:10]

M: Mhm, does anyone have any other thoughts?

SKFG3_F3: Well, maybe from the point of view of a student who travels, one can also conclude that actually it is a great advantage that actually the various sights are free for us, as for most students of the European Union, and actually I have an lot of advantages also... when I was travelling, even in Rome or something like that, almost everywhere they asked if we had some kind of student card or ISIC, you know, I guess you are all familiar with it. And actually when you're a student in the European Union as well, so there was just lot of cool stuff, and as far as actually just having an insurance card, actually now that we have that European format, that we actually all have it the same, I guess, so it's cool that actually everybody knows that and that you're actually perfectly fine to be treated actually in any of those other member countries.

M: Mhm, thanks a lot.

SKFG3_F1: So, for example, for me it's definitely of great value, especially in terms of also horizons, broadening horizons, that one can hear and also, that one can get into those other cultures. I don't even have to travel, but we have that, it's all so interconnected that normally in my life I'm already encountering speaking, I don't know, French or Spanish or somewhere a simple thing in English jumps out at me and I think it helps quite a lot to develop that kind of spirit in the body that we're encountering that kind of stimuli, so definitely yes.

M: Great. Is there anything else SKFG3_M5 and SKFG3_M4 want to add that hasn't been said?

SKFG3_M4: Basically everything that has been said here, I would also say, maybe with the difference that I personally think that if we are basically able to travel, so to speak, freely and there are no major restrictions at the borders, then I personally think that, let's say, if we are able to travel to other European countries, then we are able to better understand, let's say, maybe their culture, their way of life, basically the traditions that they have and I think it is an experience that cannot be replaced by anything else and basically it is better to experience something than just to learn it and basically, as has also been mentioned, you can say either really cheap or free healthcare in the Member States of the European Union and I think that is it, thank you for the word.

M: Thanks a lot, SKFG3_M4. SKFG3_M5?

SKFG3_M5: I agree with everything that has been said here, especially with SKFG3_F3, who started the student thing, and actually thanks to the European Union, I mainly used to travel, which was within the school, it gave me a lot of experience, as SKFG3_M4 has already mentioned here, that it is better if you experience it, even the free benefits, and that's what the European Union means to me.

M: Mhm, thanks a lot. I have another question: How would you describe your overall position, attitude, feeling towards the European Union that you have.

SKFG3_F3: So, I might start. Attitude in general, I would say, so mine personally is fine. It's so austere, but like everything is fine. Even as I mentioned whether the European Court of Justice, everything super - they cover us, they can help us, we can turn to the European Union. Maybe what I just thought of when I was thinking about all of this is that maybe the European Union should be able to look more at the problem of corruption from the other countries' side. It seems to me that it is a terrible thing that, if we as a country cannot sort it out, it is a great pity that some “bigger power” cannot actually come in to look after it and, I do not know, if they would come to some conclusion simply on the basis of some results or on the basis of some checking, that there is corruption in the country, or that it is occurring in too great a quantity, then I do not know whether they would be able to stop the use of EU funds, for example, or whether they would be able to impose sanctions on individual countries. Because I think that, over the last decades, corruption has been quite a significant problem, but it has not been addressed by the European Union, in my opinion. So, I mean, to be honest, I cannot really say what possibilities there are for the future or under whose auspices this could work, but this is quite a pity, because I think that perhaps it is also the fact that a lot of the leaders of individual states or, in particular, of our own state will probably say that, basically, why tackle some corruption when they know that some greater power will probably not intervene, because it is mostly the whole country and individual sectors that are corrupted. It would be great if there was, as I was saying, some sort of "higher power".

M: SKFG3_F3, thanks for the thought, who wants to follow up or feel free to say something else.

SKFG3_M2: Theoretically, I continue if I could. For me, the Union definitely looks like freedom. It's certainly a very substantial community. It is a community that guarantees us various things, and therefore it is very important that we somehow come together in this way, but clearly there are also certain disadvantages that such a community brings with it. However, we can overcome these differences or these disadvantages quite easily by setting up some legislation and so on in the right way. And from my point of view, I see the project of European integration and Union quite positively.

M: Thank you, you mentioned the term "come together", can you elaborate on what you meant by that?

SKFG3_M2: So, I was thinking in particular of the harmonization of laws, the creation of some common unions, not just like one European Union, but also the monetary union, the customs union, and many other things that actually... The Schengen area and many, many other sort of subsumed organizations under the European Union, which actually deal specifically with other areas.

M: Thanks a lot.

SKFG3_F1: I would like to say that my attitude towards the European Union is clear, that I'm glad we're in it and I see young people around me who probably feel the same way, but I'm a bit worried about the older generation because... and I don't know if it's because of the closed-mindedness or what it is, but I often come across such views on campus as well that I'm kind of a bit worried and then I start to think that, well, am I completely, why am I so clear on this and they're so... they see it as somebody who wants to restrict us with some laws and they want something from us, they want something from it and then I'm so confused actually that how come us young people are so clear about it and the older generation sees it as somebody who wants to take something away from us. Like, it might be caused from that past, yeah? That it used to be that way a lot of times, but well, that's kind of my dilemma that I'm dealing with right now.

M: Thank you. SKFG3_M4, SKFG3_M5?

SKFG3_M4: So, can I, I actually thought it might be, in terms of my personal attitude towards the European Union, I would define it as positive. Basically, from the aspect that the European Union is trying to basically keep the peace, so that, as SKFG3_M2 mentioned, so that war does not break out and that the individual relations between the individual members of the European Union are as positive as possible. On other things: on some of the economic side, I am quite positive about, say, the Euro funds and some of the contributions that we receive as a Member State of the European Union. For example, when funds have been used to build infrastructure and so on, to build motorways, and I also think, as I think I mentioned, improving those trade relations with each other or, possibly, still it may be the protection of rights or the introduction of some freedom of speech, democracy in general and so on.

M: Great, SKFG3_M5?

[00:19:56]

SKFG3_M5: So, my attitude towards the European Union is very positive, I especially sympathize with what SKFG3_F3 said here, with the Euro funds and the corruption - if there are some sanctions or... not for the whole state, but especially for those sectors where there is that increased corruption, so that the money goes where it should and where it is needed. Otherwise, the European Union is... I am actually proud and glad that we belong to it.

M: Thank you all. You all agree a little bit, more or less, that the European Union brings advantages, but I would like to ask about the disadvantages: if someone were to argue that membership in the Union is not beneficial, what disadvantages would you list?

SKFG3_M5: So, can I. I, from my personal point of view there is one disadvantage, which I actually mentioned a moment ago, is that there is increased corruption due to those Euro funds, that it could be more controlled. Otherwise, from my personal point of view, there are no disadvantages.

M: Thank you, who's next?

SKFG3_M2: I would perhaps comment in that vein on the election of MEPs itself, because I have a couple of times already dealt with the idea that the vote of citizens from smaller states is actually worth more than the vote of citizens from more populous states, because it is actually as if it takes a larger number of votes in a given state for an MEP to be elected. So (long pause) I proposed one solution to this a long time ago, that according to the size of the state, there could actually be a number of MEPs in that European Parliament. That they would actually have representation according to that. In addition to that, I also see certain disadvantages perhaps in terms of some kind of socialization or some kind of common culture, because the differences between individual nation states are there and those differences are likely to be there for many decades and centuries to come, and therefore I do not think that it is quite right that there should be some kind of effort to create some kind of common European culture, because I do not think that such a thing can ever come into being. That it is, in fact, that I do not think it is quite possible to create. And there are also some tendencies, such as the supremacy of EU law, or it is superior to EU law, of course, but there are cases where, as if the European Union... I sometimes feel that it is trying to address cultural and ethical issues for nation states. And that also I think should remain explicitly actually within the competence of nation states, actually within the competence of nation states certain of these cultural-ethical issues. Clearly, when they are in violation of some basic human rights, then clearly, that's when you have to step in, but as long as it's to some extent... I think it should stay within that scope.

M: Thank you, does anyone see it differently? Do you have anything to add?

SKFG3_F3: I quite largely agree with what SKFG3_M2 said and maybe the slighter disadvantage, which I think is not even within the remit of the European Union, is that there is less awareness actually maybe of exactly those older people or those who are not on social networks and so on, that maybe the media could be more able to bring information about it, how it works, whether in Brussels or just in the different sections of the European Union actually, because there are quite a lot of different myths or hoaxes, so maybe if somebody in the media - I guess in the first place, because older people also watch the news or buy the daily press. Maybe if there was more of a focus on just very basic information about the European Union, actually that, I don't know, every week there would be someone benefit that comes out of the European Union for us or some more effort to really get it into the consciousness of either the older ones or maybe even us, because I also know a lot of people our age who are just quite negative about the European Union. So. Sort of subtly, but to get it out there in a way to more people's consciousness.

M: Thanks a lot.

SKFG3_M4: I was basically thinking that with the possibility, basically, you could say, travel freely and the borders are basically open, it can also bring a lot of negative things like: maybe smuggling more of some drugs or maybe crime may then be higher, say, when some other national minorities or other races can basically travel in the European Union and move somewhere else, so there may be some racial hatred, we can say, if people were not used to living in some kind of community with such people who are basically, one can say, different according to them, so I consider that as a negativity, as a negative aspect. Or maybe sometimes those states lose that kind of sovereignty and sometimes, let's say, the European Union tries many times to make decisions for other states and basically it is related... it can be increasing that bureaucracy and so on.

M: If no one has anything else to add, we'll move on.

SKFG3_F1: I'm still... I might, as a colleague mentioned exactly, so I'd... the state is failing at that level to take care of that, but I sort of see a little bit of that hope in the European Union that maybe it could focus on supporting non-profits organizations that would actually take care of integrating people. But the kind of non-profits organizations that are already operating and trying to make a living from the donations of the people who choose to support them, but really the kind of non-profit organizations that are already operating, that this integration of those people who are going to be coming, because there is a climate crisis... so that we would be able to take them in, so that would be maybe a good reason, a good way to proceed and... Then the other thing that came to my mind is that sometimes it happens, but of course it also happens here in Slovakia usually in the council, that such contradictory laws are introduced, and it would be good to consult a little bit more maybe with experts sometimes, I think... But that's just a suggestion from school, what I picked up.

M: Thank you all. Thank you to the last speaker. I have the following question: Imagine that a natural disaster, such as a fire, an earthquake or flooding, were to break out in one of the EU countries, what should the European Union do?

SKFG3_M2: I might as well start in that direction. So we've seen this, we've seen this actually a very nice example of this already working. We saw it over the summer when, for example, from Slovakia we sent fire trucks, armaments, and equipment actually to Greece, where actually there were these huge fires on that island. Euboia, I think it was? Well, Euboia, yeah. So actually, when those fires broke out there, we actually sent equipment, firefighters, we were actually able to help them put those fires out, so that's kind of where I see the future of this integration going forward. In Germany, when there were those floods over the summer, we also saw that, and I think that the system that is in place, or the system that is already in place for that, I would say is sufficient. I actually see it quite positively.

M: You said that you see this as the purpose of the future Union, can you elaborate a little on what you meant?

SKFG3_M2: Come on, that... in the sense that the way it is set up now, that we can actually send like this because of actually those common external borders, because of other factors that actually speed up travel between countries, it also allows actually this type of assistance and so I rate it very positively.

M: Thank you.

[00:29:55]

SKFG3_F1: I think, I also think that overall it works well and I don't know how much intervention is there from the European side, I mean directly from the European Union, because it seems to me that it would be difficult if they ordered those countries to go and send some aid, that I think that those countries can do it themselves and then it's up to the European Union to reallocate a little bit of the financial aid from those European funds to that country. So, from those projects, for example, they will move it to where it is needed.

M: Thank you, who's next?

SKFG3_F3: So I think, just briefly, that I also think, as my colleague mentioned, that it probably depends also on the individual countries, to what extent and what possibilities they have for actually some kind of assistance and it would be very difficult if the European Union would dictate how much and when the assistance should be provided and how many people need to be recruited for it and so on. However, each country has a slightly different budget and so on. So, overall, I think that such aid is quite well set up within the European Union, but I guess it really depends on those states as to how they approach it, so I don't know if there is anything that needs to be changed or if we need to, like, dig further into it.

M: Okay. Anyone have anything to add?

(long pause)

M: Should some member countries do more than others? In that case, if there is a fire, or as I said there is an earthquake or something like that? SKFG3_F1 you are shaking your head [disagrees with the said].

SKFG3_F1: Yes. I don't think this should be any different by population. Like if they have to, then let them send, but that... I don't know if it should somehow escalate that you have to send so much and that much. I think they'll send what they can and... and if certain countries are not going to be involved in that sort of thing, then I would certainly move on to some sort of sanction or warning that if they are not helping others, then that membership is actually pointless, if they want to take, like, Euro funds, then go ahead, but that it doesn't make sense for those other countries to be in some sort of alliance with them if they don't want to actually cooperate.

SKFG3_M4: I agree with what SKFG3_F1 said and will add to it if I may. In fact, I will add to that by saying that I also disagree with, we can say, states that receive more from the European Union than they give, we can say, if, for some logistical reason, they are further away from a state where, we can say, there has been an earthquake or a catastrophe, then I think it is not important who goes there, but basically whoever can help, and whoever is closer, let them help, so that it is not basically distributed in such a way that, let us say, this state receives the most, on the contrary, it gives a little, so that it should go. But we should keep a cool head in this and help as much as possible.

M: Thanks a lot. Any reaction from SKFG3_M2, SKFG3_M5?

SKFG3_M2: Well, I might add that I don't think it would be right to enforce something in that way. Humanitarian aid certainly should not be about forcing someone now and even sanctioning them for not sending that aid, I don't think that's exactly the purpose of this aid, and it is clear that yes, as has been said, when a certain state is closer, perhaps it should feel, one could say, feel some moral obligation to help as soon as possible, since it is closer, but I think that there is certainly no other kind of obligation that can be very much present there, in my opinion. For that would actually imply, not that it would imply, but it would deny the freedom of joining such an association. That is to say, we do not have to, we do not have to support everybody right now, right away, or something along those lines, as I would put it.

M: So, it should be based on some kind of voluntariness.

SKFG3_M2: Mhm, definitely, definitely in that direction.

M: Do you all agree? Is there anyone who disagrees?

SKFG3_F3: I think it's very difficult to predict what we will say now and what will happen in, let’s say, 10 years, because if everything is on a voluntary basis and only on the basis of who wants what, then in 10 years we may get to the point where one country will be completely bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, and we will be dominated by people who will say that we will not give them anything of our own. I would also like to say that if the other country has a problem, why should we "poor Slovaks" run to help some country, why don't the Austrians, the Germans, or the more developed countries, for example, go there, I don't know, yeah? On the other hand, we should also think about the fact that they, mostly the state, is responsible for the standard of living it has, they are responsible for... we ordinary people hardly, but a little bit those representatives of the state, as if it's mostly in their hands, but again, in my opinion, it's not necessary to put everything on such voluntary help, that it always needs to be corrected a little bit by some law or something like that. But I certainly do not mean to say that we should prescribe who must help to what extent, but that would exclude some kind of equality principle, that it is simply who is more and who is less in the European Union. I would maybe make it conditional on something, probably not population, but maybe, it's hard to say, as you were talking about who is closer or further away to a country, clearly, they should go to help first, but like to what extent specifically... So it might maybe depend on who has the ability to send what kind of equipment and things like that, because if, I don't know, we have, I'll say, I'll think of 50 fire trucks and somebody has 50,000 fire trucks, so clearly we're not going to send all 50 of ours, but we'd just rather think a little bit about our own people as well, that if anything can happen in our country as well, we'll be able to do that. We need to help each other, but again, to a certain extent, because I just think, as I see all around me now, that everybody has the freedom, whether of speech or to make decisions on everything, it's getting quite out of control for us already.

M: Right, I have another question, she's just saying that, or asking about what you said just now, SKFG3_F3. I'll tell the question. If there was a need to send a crisis rescue team, for example firefighters or doctors, do you think your country {Slovakia} should do that? And who should cover the cost of that support?

SKFG3_F3: So surely, we should - we should do that, like send our people, there's nothing to think about and [deep exhalation], as for the cost... I'd say my preference would be that we as a country don't pay for it, but neither does the country that unfortunately something like this is going to occur there. But it would be nice if maybe the European Union, if both countries were members of the EU, if there was some kind of budget for such situations, which could be drawn upon. Hey, there is some kind of material reserve in Slovakia or something like that, so if it was also part of the European Union.

SKFG3_M2: So maybe I would add to that that it is certainly not a problem to set up such reserves for such events in some way in advance, in case some such crisis happens, because there is always, let's say, somewhere to take from some things for which money has already been agreed or will be agreed. So, in that spirit, I think that there is always money to be had somehow, to put it popularly, from somewhere. And to cover... So of course, if the state decides to do such help selflessly, that's just its free will, and if there are certain funds for something like that, then why shouldn't it be paid from such funds? So, I guess that's kind of how I see it.

M: Thanks a lot. Does anyone else have anything to add to this question? (short pause) Do you feel responsible to provide assistance personally in such an event?

[00:40:03]

SKFG3_M2: Personally, well, personally, it depends. So... I guess it wouldn't be quite right of me to encourage citizens somehow to send some amount of money into some fund or some collection. To urge them to help some country now. In my opinion, this should be done just from what has already been collected, or it should be included in some way in the national budget, for example. Because there is actually a sufficient amount of money collected in that budget, if we look at that budget in some way, and there is always the possibility of cutting a small chunk out of that budget and putting it towards some such humanitarian aid in case it is needed. But, of course, I am still of the opinion that, in the event of such a major crisis in a particular place, I think it is right to use either the Euro funds or some other monetary funds within the Union to do that.

M: What about the others?

SKFG3_F1: I would like to say that we have seen here recently, I don't know if it was a year or two ago, when the apartment building in Prešov exploded, that a lot of money was raised for the citizens of that apartment building. However, I also know from my own experience that, for example, at that time, it depends on how a person is set up at the time, that whether or not he sends the money, whether or not he has extra money, or whether or not he has extra money, or rather, then, to help manually with some work or, I do not know, what those people will need. But for example now what they were, in the Czech Republic what was that storm, that tornado, so actually I know that a person wanted to go to help and personally it didn't work out for me and I was quite sorry afterwards because I know that if something like that happened to me, I also want people to come to help me. And then it's so depressing actually towards the end when you remember that you didn't get to go... and he still can, actually, but sometimes it doesn't work out with the time, but I'm stuck, I'm sorry. Never mind, that's all.

M: All right, I'll repeat the question. Thanks, SKFG3_F1, for the answer. If there is a natural disaster in another member country, do you feel responsible to provide assistance personally? SKFG3_M5, SKFG3_M4, SKFG3_F3?

SKFG3_M5: If I may. So the feeling would be, actually, or my feeling to help them would be that if I help that country on behalf of Slovakia, that I would help that country, like just by myself, that I would carry something, some of those sands, if there was a flood, that let it stop or like there was a tornado, that I would help with some of my strength, what I am capable of or if I am a fireman or a paramedic, I would go. Mostly what would drive me is that if something were to happen to us in Slovakia, I would hope or even believe that if I... If I help another member state, that they would actually sort of remember that and then they would give us the help back. Or that they would, I don't know, somebody there, you never know what situation you're going to be left in, that they're going to meet somebody and all of a sudden, they're going to say: "oh, somebody from Slovakia came to help me, so I'll try to help them too". Actually, I would be driven by just that I would help them and what if it happens to me, what if it happens to me, by chance, I will hope and believe that they would help me if our country needs it or I need it.

M: Yeah, I understand that, so you're expecting and hoping and believing, so...

SKFG3_M5: Well, I rather hope and believe, not that I expect, because you never know, rather I hope and believe.

M: Thanks a lot.

SKFG3_M4: I basically agree with all the points made here. And in the event of, say, some catastrophe... I'll give the example of France, and I realize that I'm not, let's say, maybe in a position to be there in person, it may be for various reasons, either financial or in general. So maybe I would try to help so remotely, so I would try to organize some kind of a collection or let's say, try to put it in the forefront somehow among people, among acquaintances to collect something for them and if I couldn't help somehow personally physically, then maybe some financial help or I would share it in general among friends and just like SKFG3_M5 said, I would also hope that if I helped, it would come back to us, because I personally think that how much you give is how much you get back, so... So.

M: And why don't you think so? Or what makes you think so?

SKFG3_M4: You mean that it should be returned as much as I give or...

M: Well... Actually, you're saying that you don't expect to get back as much as you would have given.

SKFG3_M4: Oh, no, I made a mistake. I meant to say that as much as I give, I expect that it would be returned to me, meaning that if I help, then I would expect some feedback that someone could help me.

M: Thanks a lot.

SKFG3_F3: I'll maybe just follow up that I think that people have it completely aligned in this kind of area and that we just see, as SKFG3_F1 mentioned, whether in Slovakia, when something happens, people just mobilize in a second, whether financially or as SKFG3_M5 said, by their own strength or to produce anything, you just see that people are so grounded that they try to help. Because many times from the side of the state itself the help may not come so quickly and in such a quantity, and considering what SKFG3_M4 said, it's really nice that, for example, in France, when we don't have the possibility to get and help directly, so it's just possible through social networks, on Facebook, at least to get into some different and closed groups. However, there are many such groups, including, for example, Slovaks living in France, it is necessary to find out what they need, what we can provide somehow, so actually this is also how it can now be done remotely via the Internet. So, we certainly feel responsible for this and we would like to help as much as we can.

SKFG3_F1: I would also like to add that it is not the aid to our state that is the problem for the majority of the time {she meant helping Slovaks to Slovaks}, rather it is the other states that I think are the problem. Because I think I really do have it kind of in my blood that we're a poorer country and that we should... that somebody else should help. When they've... once it's that other country. And it all actually goes against that equality that we're always more and less and we're richer and we're poorer and unless we remove that narrative from our minds, I don't think we'll ever be able to live completely in that equality here, because we're really all the time, "well, the French or the Germans should help," or "they're already making these machines and that's why they're making laws for us to sort of buy them," and it is just such horrible... It's really just in people's heads, I hear it around me a lot and it makes me so sad that we don't know... that we all want something for something, and we can't just do something selflessly and I think we need to work on that from kindergartens or schools to get that past and all these patterns that we have picked up out of ourselves, out of those heads.

M: Thank you very much. Those were all great thoughts. When you, SKFG3_F1, were talking about the "we," who were you referring to? That „we“ have these ideas of being able to help ourselves within the state but not anymore to others.

SKFG3_F1: I was just thinking about Slovaks, I can't speak for Czechs, but it's quite similar too, it depends of course on east-west too, but I was thinking more about Slovaks.

M: Yeah. So, if I can be clear, I'm... hmm.... Like, it's not a problem to give help within Slovakia, but it's more of a problem to give help to other member countries.

SKFG3_F1: I think so, I think that within Slovakia we are cooperating, and we are like "we are proud Slovaks, and we have to help each other" - togetherness. But as soon as it's another country, we're like "hmm, why are we sending them those radars (army equipment?), we should keep them, let someone else send them" or "why are we sending them vaccinations" or... now just specifically what was going on. So, it's so on the edge, well, with our helping other countries in my opinion.

M: Thank you for your answer and let me move on. If you would... Again, imagine: if an economic crisis like the 2009 debt crisis happened again and some countries are hit harder than others, how should your country behave in such a situation?

[00:50:17]

SKFG3_F1: I'd follow up: it depends on what... in my opinion, how happened it to them. For example, if it happens to us now, I wouldn't send us anything because we just had a vaccination lottery and we were giving money away to factors {she meant spheres}, to places where it shouldn't have gone at all, and we're doing everything so hastily, so I would look at the process… I would do a list, if they can get {if they have a right, she meant} that help from those other states like in such a big way that they would be able to kick-start that economy according that procedure... In my opinion, we would also take some responsibility for that. Unless, of course, it was some of that tourism, like the southern countries now, for example, that's going away from them... they don't get tourists going there because of the coronary crisis, I would certainly send help there, because we will all want to go back there for those holidays after the coronary crisis. So, it really depends on what's causing it. If it really is due to some kind of politician's hastiness, then one has to think that, well, if he knew how to give that money away, then he might be able to somehow get it back into the budget.

M: Thanks a lot. Any other reaction?

SKFG3_M4: Basically, I would, I mean, I agree with SKFG3_F1, what she said, that basically we should set some benchmark based on which we judge how much and therefore whether it is appropriate to send, let’s say, some financial support or maybe support in other words, to a given country. I will give an example: I do not remember the year when it was exactly, but when we helped Greece, because it was badly hit financially, so I can be wrong, but at least as far as I know, Slovakia got involved in this help and that's when I had the feeling that the Greeks were trying to feed on other states from which they received financial support, but let's say the pensions or salaries they had set there did not reduce them a bit, but kept them at the same level and, in my opinion, relied many times on they will receive some financial support from the European Union and... The other aspect is that I think it is quite normal that in the European Union there are countries that give more and then there are countries that give less, that is, receive more and send, let’s say, maybe less of those funds basically to other countries and so on.

SKFG3_M2: So, I would perhaps add that in order for such assistance to take place at all, I think it is very important to really, as has already been said, assess the situation, how much the country actually needs the assistance and what the actual level of culpability is, because yes, we remember that because of the Greek bailout, the government fell, so... Of course, it had a huge impact on society, of course it was very polarizing for society, so it was already there, it was already visible at the time how controversial this decision was. So, it is not possible to say clearly when the state needs help and when it does not need help. As I would put it in some sensible way... I think the state should certainly deserve the aid, and it is clear that it has to show some gratitude and also show some helpfulness that the state is willing to accept in return for that aid, because it is clear that it cannot just keep taking and not giving anything at all.

M: Thank you for your answer. I may have a follow-up question later but let SKFG3_F3 and SKFG3_M5 comment if they want to.

SKFG3_F3: So I agree with the fact that it would be nice if it was actually conditioned by some such criterion, I don't want to put everything on the responsibility of the European Union again, but maybe it would be nice if simply from their side or from the side of the EU the criterion was somehow conditioned on all countries, actually, because it would be difficult for someone in our state to take such a responsibility as to judge for themselves whether it is appropriate to go for help and to what extent to go for help, because then all those "experts" in our country are emerging for the most part. So, it would be, it would be nice if some experts really sat down and said that there would be some criteria in short and they would just proceed accordingly.

M: Thanks a lot, SKFG3_M5?

SKFG3_M5: I actually agree with what SKFG3_M2 said, that if we were to help a country that is already there, so that it would be seen after some time, I am not saying immediately, but after some time, when it is starting to get back on its feet and when the help is starting to work, that the country, actually, gives something back as well. That as such a thank you that we simply supported them when they needed to.

M: Thank you all very much for your responses. The question was, if it was in another country, how would your country behave in such a case and most of you talked about if it happened in Slovakia. Is there anything else you would like to add to that? If I ask the original question? If it happens in another country, how should Slovakia behave?

SKFG3_F1: Exactly according to that, they should help that country if that country deserves it. That Slovakia should help that country that needs help, if it was caused by something... Well, according to some kind of criteria, or some criteria like that, no. If it is possible, it would certainly help at least a little bit even if they caused it themselves, but it is more like to look at it objectively, that whether they need it and whether it will help them or it will make them even more dependent on other countries and on aid. Because that way they will never actually get on their own feet/knees or legs.

M: Mhm, thanks a lot.

SKFG3_M4: Personally, I think that Slovakia should certainly approach such a situation in such a way that it should help, but of course, I would probably consider, in addition to some kind of scale, whether then, if we, let´s say, in the long term, were to help a country financially, if we are talking about some kind of funds, then whether it could burden our economy so much that then we would basically need help again from someone else. Perhaps on the basis of these aspects, I would also consider whether or not to help, so that it would not again burden our economy so much that we would then, as I mentioned, I repeat myself, but so that we would not then again require some help from other Member States.

M: Thank you, and you're actually following up on the next question: If your country is negatively affected, how should other countries, how should other EU countries react?

SKFG3_M2: I would start now. I dare say that I would apply probably exactly the same rule as I mentioned earlier, which is to find out some effects, let's say, economic aid or something, that whether that aid actually had the meaning that was originally intended or whether we were just, to put it popularly, pouring money in there unnecessarily and basically completely meaninglessly. Because that country would either have such a level of corruption there, that the money would basically be stolen right away or the money would somehow go to waste because they would not be able to develop projects effectively, they would not be able to draw it down effectively. There are, in my opinion, a lot of factors to be evaluated which, overall, actually, sort of, contribute to the credibility of that country in terms of actually drawing down, both such aid or, in general, yes, such aid.

[01:00:02]

SKFG3_F1: As I was saying, I would... If it was caused by the latest events in Slovakia now, I wouldn't give us the aid, and if I did, and that goes for those other countries as well, there would be conditions. Like either that there has to be a change of leadership, which caused that situation, and therefore that the country would have to be run, for example, temporarily only by some experts or then by some new - some other people and so on. And the fact that it would have to be with such conditions that we would then be able to get out of it thanks to the financial injection that would come to us.

M: Okay. How to phrase it. I think you're generally talking about some political exchange, these conditions, and if those conditions mean some financial exchange, that Slovakia will get a package of money from the EU, provided that it does some economic reforms. Do you agree with such a solution?

SKFG3_F1: Yes, yes, definitely.

M: Does anyone have any other opinion?

SKFG3_F3: I have to comment because... it's when you think about it, SKFG3_F1, it's all really great, your ideas, I agree with that, but just take it that just always it's going to be the ordinary people that take it, just how can we and our grandparents, our parents basically be to blame for whatever vaccination lottery or whatever or whatever trouble our country gets into, because even if there was a really big problem looming in the country, you know, who's going to take the hit. It is just that we would not get help from other countries because we would not meet some criteria anyway, after all, because we got ourselves into that trouble, so we would still be without help and, like, what would we do. We, very ordinary people, who have absolutely nothing to do with what has happened. That would be nice, as you said, to either take some political responsibility there, that (OL: mali padať hlavy; Literal: heads should fall), or, in terms of some kind of economic responsibility. I do not know whether, after all these years, there is a solution that we just freeze somebody's salary or something like that. I would normally also put imprisonment there or simply such sanctions for the fact that some of the main officials can only get the country to such problems that they are simply dependent on the help of other states, because it is simply our problem and why on the one hand, other countries should help and, on the other hand, we ordinary people simply endure it. As I said at the beginning, on the part of the European Union, there is, in my opinion, very necessary and inevitable to provide just such a more radical solution and access to such things, but I still enjoy it, so that there would already be some or no financial bankruptcy or simply such things. Of course, if there was a natural disaster, it's just about something completely different, even those officials are not ultimately responsible for that, and of course you just have to help there. We would help too, and we would be great if people helped, but often there is no need to send any funds quickly, but they know whether people in neighboring countries mobilize quickly and just help anyone else. So, I would, I just still stand by the view that we really have to bother those at the high positions (OL: sekírovať naozaj zvrchu), because it's just what we can do?

M: Thank you, would anyone like to... Yes, SKFG3_F1.

SKFG3_F1: I'd like to comment on that, I certainly do, I don't want to leave people to sort of starve now or whatever, but at the same time it's not entirely true that it's not our fault, because who voted for them, those... so we as a citizen have a big responsibility in those elections and we do it a lot of times, two days before, you look at the leaflets and you say: "hm, so this one from the polls looks like he's going to win, so I'm going to vote for him" and that's very irresponsible, I would say, and so we can be guilty of that as well. But, therefore, it would be good with those conditions, certainly a change in those, some reform and some changes to help us get out of it.

M: Thank you.

SKFG3_M2: I might add that I also agree with the view that it is impossible, in fact it would be completely contrary to any rule of law and to any norms, that we should now start sanctioning the ordinary population for having elected someone in politics to parliament or to some... either in two chambers or in one as we have in Slovakia, because one thing needs to be realized and the fact that people voted for a party with certain ideas, they chose them in good faith that these ideas are likely to be promoted, but when the party decides not to promote any ideas, resp. some group of deputies from a given, from a given political party, a political club, it doesn't matter in principle, so the citizen really has minimal effect or influence, that is, in principle such a derivation of civic responsibility, I would consider absolutely unacceptable. The second thing I would like to say, then, what I stand for, is that the help, even if it should come, of course, must be such that it is not... So that it is not some brutally large package of money at once, but so that it basically goes gradually, so that certain results are actually seen after a certain time, actually graded in that we would see that yes, that state really treats that money wisely, or we will see the exact opposite that that the state either steals the money, does not use it effectively, does not draw it effectively, draws it on projects that are not related to the issue at all or anything like that, so yes, at that moment we can decide to stop it and we will probably not be so sorry as if we sent the whole package there at once, which would somehow suddenly betray, steal, anything else.

M: Thanks a lot. I'm sensing a kind of distrust of the country here, that it would possibly invest the money as well. Do I understand that right? Am I articulating that right?

SKFG3_M2: So we are basically talking about purely hypothetical scenarios, right, so clearly, trust or distrust in this case depends very much on the current setup, when we know that most of the states of the Union are really legal states, they are democratic states, even if in some of them there is corruption, so yes, there are exceptions, like Slovakia, when the corruption was really systemic, you could say, but most of the states are basically really ones where this is not the case. Indeed, there, it has often been the failure of individuals, and in that case, too, there is no need at all to punish society in any way for any individual failures. That would, in fact, be very much against the rule of law as well.

M: Thanks a lot. If you allow me, I will move on to the next question: considering that there are inequalities between the countries of the European Union, as well as between people within a country, should the European Union have a common program, a fund, to reduce these social inequalities? Why yes, why not?

SKFG3_M2: So maybe I would start. Pardon me if I forget to say the name at the beginning, somehow, I don't associate it with that... I don't know, it's like that... Sorry.

M: All right.

SKFG3_M2: Well, at the beginning it is probably important to say that the differences here have probably always (been?). That is, the differences here have always been between some population groups, even here with a very high probability even, we can state that there will be those differences. And now, how to address the disparities? So, one could say that we could address it in such a way that according to certain indices, which we already have indices to measure some human development, HDI and so on, we are able to state on the basis of them how many people in a given country or what percentage of people are on the poverty line, and when... I mean, there was also a statistic now recently on this subject, and there it just showed that which states have exactly what percentage of people on the total poverty line. And I just wouldn't see so much the point of sort of levelling out inequality overall, rather I just see more of a point in reducing the number of people who are on that kind of line. Because, yes, we have had regimes in the past that have tried to basically solve inequalities and it has produced almost no positive economic effects. It's just usually put those countries into a lot of debt and we're basically still suffering those sins to this day, you could say, well. And I would add to that that maybe, yes, it's more like reducing it to...

[01:10:48]

M: Who should be responsible for this?

SKFG3_M2: Responsibility? This should probably be borne by the individual states, either by drawing up projects on such matters, which would then then go either to the European Commission, Parliament, where the budget would actually consider what percentage of the population is, say, at the poverty line, what there are solutions in that country because it is clear that not every country has the same reasons for this line, right? Somewhere it is expensive housing, somewhere it is a lack of work. It really depends on the country itself and this should definitely be considered.

M: Thank you. What about the others? Should the European Union have a common program/fund to reduce social inequalities?

SKFG3_M4: So exactly as SKFG3_M2 said, so basically there have been and there will be differences and I think it's basically quite natural for the reason that I believe that the fact that, let's say, the economy of another country - compared to Slovakia, if I were to give Germany and Slovakia as an example. It's understandably clear that we are perhaps economically worse off, and I think a lot of times there are different historical reasons for that. That is to say, in my opinion, it has some historical origin, that is to say, how that particular country developed in a given, in given centuries, basically, how it was able to occupy different territories and so on. Or whether it was a war and how the country was able to basically stand up. So, I think it is quite normal that a given country, let us say, can be defined as poorer and another as richer and whether there should be some kind of program. I think there could be in principle, and I think that is also the main, one could say, objective of the European Union, to try to, whether it is to improve some kind of trade relations as I mentioned or whether it is, maybe it is to be able to eliminate some of the bigger differences between countries. But I, personally, think that each one of those countries is specific. Some states have more to offer, others have less to offer, whether it is in tourism or whether somebody has, say, a better developed engineering industry, so I think that some package, let´s say, that would be able to at least remove some of the inequality to some extent would be great, but I don't think that it can be completely removed.

M: Okay.

SKFG3_F1: Is there anything I can do? I'm not quite sure now if you mean differences within that state or interstate, I'm probably...

M: Both.

SKFG3_F1: Both, hmm. Because... rather the ones inside the state like that I didn't quite understand how SKFG3_M2 meant that whether, that to reduce, not to give them that help, but at the same time to reduce it, that like once there was an attempt to reduce things like that, but it ended up in concentration camps. So, I'm not sure how to reduce it when not using some help. It has to be put in there, so in my opinion it has to be documented there, it will probably have to be financial costs, but not with allowances and things like that, but with education and training and quasi plundering from those routines (OL: zachodených chodníčkov), which for example some minorities that are poorer, have them {she probably meant the social benefits for the Roma community}. And those who have money and then they have to approve it again and the rest of society, which often has a big problem giving someone money when, when they have to earn them and someone has to get them, of course, it is again misleading circle. And balancing, these financial ones, well, financial differences across border would probably be quite problematic and it might be very artificial that... that such... I don't know, probably... I think that would be quite a problem, it may not even be completely necessary.

M: Why would that be a problem?

SKFG3_F1: I think that could be a problem in that a lot of times elsewhere they just have twice as much, twice as much salary, but at the same time twice as much housing and so on, that I think it would still end up with everybody talking about how everything is getting more expensive here [laughing]. So, I don't know whether it would be so effective that suddenly we would all be earning the same in the European Union, as maybe it would help the mentality of the more eastern nations, but otherwise I don't know whether it would work at all.

M: Thank you. SKFG3_M5 and SKFG3_F3? SKFG3_F3's spoken before, so you can...

SKFG3_F3: Actually, as far as some differences or whatever, I totally agree that there were, there are and there will be. But if we are talking about poverty or comparing within a country or between countries, I would just say that Slovakia cannot be a poor country, just if we say that some minister of ours has a ranch in Australia, for example, which maybe even the French president doesn't have. So the paradox is that actually how can we be a poor country when we just see things like that, that actually what our main leaders have and then we look at what we have, that how many people are starving here, what pensions people have, that these are just the differences that I think we need to stop building on, but it's basically also... Maybe it comes from the fact that actually those people, when they're already well off, when they're high up, they just don't care about that or they don't have those thoughts anymore, that they start to deal with, oh shit, a lot of food is being thrown away, a lot of clothes are being thrown away, and it's just like that, you know. I have seen it myself; I have seen how much food is just thrown away every single night and nobody cares that actually that food can be so utilized and so many people can be helped. I'm just saying that within our state, that how could we maybe help poverty a little bit, if we were talking amongst each other states, there's so much that could actually be implemented once, or once so implemented, because there's totally different things that could be done just to transit each other like that and so on, so... it's just that when we talk about some differences and some poverty, we should just talk about what is actually being done so that maybe there are no such differences in those countries. It doesn't have to be all about money, that we earn so much, and the other country earns so much... Exactly, every country just has a slightly different history, a different economy that is, that's just, those are things that we might not even change. That that's the way it is and that's the way it's going to be, but there's just an awful lot of other things, whether it's the hunger or whether it's just that a lot of people really don't have anything to wear, that they're wearing short things in the winter and things like that... Those are such basic things and I feel like nobody really cares about that kind of stuff right now. That we are still only getting money, salaries, pensions, but really basic things that we can help these people with and then maybe those pensions and those salaries would be enough for them. It is approached from the wrong side, in my opinion. These differences…

M: Okay. Thanks. SKFG3_M5?

SKFG3_M5: Actually, the equality between countries, especially in terms of economic terms, will never be, let's be honest. Inflation is different in each country and especially as SKFG3_M4 has already mentioned, in terms of historical terms, what regimes there have been, especially in those countries, it has a different impact on the economy and especially we cannot compare ourselves with the Germans. There are several times more of them than Slovaks and it is clear that Slovakia will never have such an economy or such a demand or even the overall production to equal Germany. Or even with the Czech Republic to match it, it would be completely insane {in a positive way} just to match such a Czech Republic in my opinion. The European Union cannot, in my opinion, save this, not even with those aid packages. In my view, it would only increase inflation in the country, so we would actually get more money, but it would make everything more expensive, so we would be back where we started. The only thing is, as SKFG3_M2 has mentioned many times here, those projects, maybe some projects to help us, more jobs especially. I think that would help that national economy, but to make the states economically equal with each other, that's never going to happen. At least in my opinion, it doesn't look that way yet and as far as within the state. Hmm, there will always be classes of people, even when the previous regime was here, we all wanted to be equal, but actually everyone wasn't equal, the politicians could afford more or even some people were more than the others. And that's how society is already classified in my opinion. Long ago and already... economic equality just, in my opinion, I repeat myself, will never be, as far as the state is concerned, there will always be poorer, somebody will have more, somebody will be richer.

[01:20:28]

M: We've slipped a bit into some pessimism. I have one more question here on this topic: should your country contribute to reducing unemployment in another EU country, even if it would mean additional costs for your country?

SKFG3_M5: Then I can go straight on. No, at least Slovakia shouldn't, I am of the opinion that if we have a problem ourselves, how can we help another country that has the same problem if we can't solve it ourselves.

SKFG3_M2: Maybe I could still follow up somehow. In that spirit, well, as has been said, as I also think, as I am of the opinion that equality cannot be achieved, there will always be the more diligent, the less diligent, there will always be those who will be dependent on some help, there will always be those who will not be dependent on it. It is the role of society to take care of a certain proportion of such people, but it cannot go beyond a certain point that we... that it has such an impact on society that, say, inflation starts to rise rapidly, currency starts to devalue rapidly, say, and so on, which has also been said or voiced, and so I think to another country, in some way, for states to deal with unemployment amongst themselves. I think that this is also not a path that I would very much welcome the Union to take either. What I also see, then, is more of a solution in some real projects. I mean, development, I mean, Euro-funds, but... those Euro-funds can be used by the state to develop unemployment, they can be used to improve education, they can be used for various other projects, and I would not limit it to the fact that the state has to use the money just for unemployment, or we are specifically going to help another state with unemployment. Because those unemployment factors, also there is not just one factor, and it is not uniform in every state. Also, there are many reasons for that and therefore I would still maybe like to qualify or clarify that what I meant by reduction, I meant by reduction just that we would reduce the solution of such problems with the levelling of some inequalities, we would reduce it just to actually help those who need it the most. But, again, I think it has to be done in a moderate way, because we know how large a number of those people are who are both unemployed, but also or are on these various benefits and so on. It's not always, it's not always black and white that it's just those people not getting jobs or not having qualifications or something like that. Often, it's also that they'll settle for those benefits because they're often high enough to cover some basic living costs or some basic living needs, and therefore they themselves don't have extreme motivation to go and look for a job or try to find a job somehow {again, participant probably talk about Roma minority}. Therefore, I think that just levelling out inequalities will actually encourage the lazy ones, that is my view on this issue.

M: Okay, thanks for the opinion. I would... I have one more reassurance question, and let's please leave welfare aside. Both SKFG3_M5 and SKFG3_M2 were relatively negative on the question that Slovakia should help with unemployment in another member state, does anyone have a completely different opinion?

SKFG3_F1: Well, maybe if we had, if we had a car, let's say, a car company or something like that that we were looking for, that where we wanted it, that we didn't have a place to produce it here or it would be more appropriate to produce it in some other country. Because of, for example, there was some source of something that we needed or something like that and that it could help them as well, then I don't see much of a problem with that. I mean, it does not seem to me that we have such bad unemployment in our country, but maybe I am wrong, and I do not have any figures. However, it could be the work of the European Union that if some companies wanted to come to us, either from China or from America, that the company would simply put some application to the European Union and it would give them a ( ), it would give them a place somewhere that would be suitable. Like, where they've just got increased unemployment and it might help that country. But that's probably pretty complicated.

M: Thanks a lot. You all have such concrete ideas and solutions; I really like it. And if I may, to keep to time and not to keep you here too long, I'll move on, I'll move on to the conclusion. Today we have been discussing the EU - the European Union - and we have touched on various areas, such as just social and economic differences. Are there any other areas that you would say are relevant when we talk about relations and the intention to support within the EU. Are there any other areas other than the ones we have talked about?

SKFG3_M4: Maybe I would point out that it is in the educational field that we could say that we have the opportunity to be educated in other countries, where basically another country can help us directly and indirectly, so that, let's say, the Slovaks can be more qualified in some area, let's say, where the education is at a better level or where, let's say, the educational activity is much more developed than in our country and it can basically give us some more experience, more qualifications, so I think that in this part.

M: Thank you.

SKFG3_F1: It would definitely be nice to not be afraid to be inspired, that maybe we don't have to travel there right away or whatever, maybe it would be nice to look around at what's in those countries and what works well and just apply it, like totally unashamedly, that we're going to repeat after somebody, but to try to apply it when it's already working somewhere, even just that education. Yes, that some of those methods have changed, we can Google everything quickly, so don't go through the memorization, but really deal with the fact that the person understands it and can form his own opinion about it, because I see that on myself as well, that I miss it sometimes. I can memorize it, but then I can't comment on it anymore or understand it completely sometimes, so it would be nice to signify that. And now, I don't know, I can't think of any other, I guess other than economics, sociology, I can't think of any other field that you could think of.

M: Okay.

SKFG3_M2: So, I would perhaps go back to what I was saying at the beginning, which is that the general respect for human rights is sometimes not quite at the highest level, so to speak, between individual nation states, after all, even Poland, Hungary, at the moment, quite like... some might call it a break from the chain, I wouldn't see it that black again. It is simply that they have perhaps put themselves on a certain path and it is therefore somehow our task, in the spirit of that togetherness, to try to explain to them in some way, rather than these sanctions, to explain to them what they are doing wrong, to explain to them why, that, what they are trying to do is not right or to point it out to them in some way. Rather than, let me say, using certain sanctions and penalties really only as the last choice - the ultima ratio, if you could call it that, the last choice, because if we sanction everybody, it would be pointless. What I would add, then, is that, in relation to the Union's remit, there are cultural and ethical issues that have become very intensively addressed in society in the last decade, or perhaps in the last 15 years, and thanks to which society is essentially polarized to a large extent, so we might as well try to agree on some kind of common solution to them, since this also directly affects certain human rights. Some people may see it that way, some people may not, it is very subjective even within them.

[01:30:34]

M: Okay, so we had education - education, respect for human rights, cultural and historical issues. Can you think of anything else? SKFG3_F3, SKFG3_M5, right? How would you say that the topics discussed - just economic and social differences are related to your country's future in the EU?

SKFG3_F3: Well, I always take the view that the views of young people or actually like this discussion is very such a good basis for decision making even for the competent ones, because actually we are saying here basically all things from practice, nobody is saying anything learned, nothing that they have learned in school or anything like that, but these are things that we just perceive as ordinary people, so far students, what I see or what I think and it would be nice just to build on such views and ideas maybe to build something further simply. It would be nice if just all these ideas could get somewhere where they just mean something, that these are very much, I think, fundamental topics that we have just dealt with, that just definitely need to be addressed and dealt with and I believe that just if we get 100 people here, just 100 people have something to say on these topics. So, I certainly think it's a positive thing that it's great that we've just taken these topics on and that they could be useful to somebody, maybe.

M: Mhm. Does anyone want to add anything else to this question?

SKFG3_M5: If I may respond to what SKFG3_F3 was saying, that actually we, young people, are discussing here, we are having a discussion here. So, I think like it's great, it's just that I personally at home, when we talk, like this, about the EU or politics in general, the grandparents or even the older members of the family, they have their opinion. I don't know if the rest of you have it or even somewhere out there, that when we comment on this, they say: “but you don't know anything, young people, you don't know anything about it”. And that's such a disincentive for that young person as well, that they would want change as well, most mean well because I think we're all sort of in agreement here, but I certainly believe that if there was an older person here, or even not that much older, that they would say that “it's the young people, they don't get it or they don't know that's how it is”. That's so demotivating, at least for me personally. Because they kind of don't take us into consideration, or that seriously, that's the word.

M: Mhm.

SKFG3_M2: I'd maybe respond a little bit more, so it depends very on the level of education of the elderly person in question, I think. So there's certainly a difference between talking about the Union with a person who's worked in the legal profession for 50 years. Or if a person would talk to someone who used to make some simple products in a factory, right? Just to achieve a certain amount of employment at that time, they also hired everyone, and then it looked the way it did - those products and basically the states as a whole... That's why I think everyone's opinion is somewhat relevant, or so relevant, but everyone should have the right to an opinion, but it is already up to us to decide whether that opinion is in any way relevant to the issue or not. And that's, in my opinion, very one of the most important tasks of critical thinking is to be able to justify a thing or just take it dry from some crazy politician on Facebook, right, and spread it when I say it so vulgarly. So yes, it's about critical thinking, I think it's often forgotten.

M: Since time is running out, I have one last question, and now I ask each of you to answer in turn: what would you say in conclusion on this subject? I ask each of you for one comment, one sentence, one evaluation. l and SKFG3_M2 have already kind of brought it up, so now each of you has the space for a final thought.

SKFG3_M4: Well, I personally think that there should definitely be more of these discussions and I think that, as far as possible, not only more and more young people should participate in these discussions, but maybe do a mix of those age groups where basically, so that also, let's say, the older people can listen to our opinion on how we perceive, let's say, the shift in the present, where we would like to go, how we would like it to look like, let's say, in our country. So for me, definitely more such discussions, where we would basically all be involved.

M: Thanks a lot. SKFG3_F3, SKFG3_M5, SKFG3_F1, SKFG3_M2.

SKFG3_F3: So I am also in favor of the fact that it would be great if there were more discussions like this and maybe when learning about the European Union, whether at primary, secondary or university level, it is not simply discussed how many stars are on the flag of the European Union, but just so that everyone has the opportunity to express how they perceive this topic, what they think of it, so that it is more of a discussed topic and so that it is not taught some nonsense that one does not need anyway. And it was certainly a great idea that such discussions would be great to actually involve different age groups, so that we could just sort of explain it to each other and understand each other a little bit, that why others perceive it so differently than we do.

M: Thank you.

SKFG3_M5: I can follow. Actually, I totally agree with what SKFG3_M4 said, we need more discussions like this and especially the mix of the population - young and old and even some high-school students I would welcome, because that's like our generation still. They are still influenced or quite influenced by what they have at home or what environment they live in, and I would especially welcome people like that in discussions like this, that not just the sort of random people who are responsible, but if the GDPR and all those things allow it, the younger people, definitely, that how they perceive it as well.

SKFG3_F1: I would like to say that there is a need for a change in that education and somehow to get that hope back among the people also that we can be equal and that it doesn't have to be... you have to feel somehow... to bring that hope back into our lives, because, you know, we've fallen into pessimism right here, too, and then, like, it's never going to be good for us to feel like that and to have those thoughts amongst ourselves. As a discussion, definitely great, but lately I notice that often times they end up so pessimistic. One does feel good talking about this and that, but to no avail we're like somehow properly, I feel like... I don't know, I can't really describe it that way, hmm.

SKFG3_M2: To put it in perspective, it is not necessarily the aim of the discussion to come to some common conclusion or some consensus. That could, that debate would have to last not 90 minutes but 6 hours, maybe even then we wouldn't really come to a consensus, right? And it is these short discussions that are usually a very good, a very good shot, as it were, at some sort of naming of some of the most serious problems that we are actually dealing with and that we either have to deal with in some way, or, or it would be appropriate to deal with them. But also, actually, yes, I think this naming of those problems is important. And it is not necessarily just about pessimism, it can be just, it can result in how we decide in the next European elections who we are going to give our vote to and what the next representation will be then. It also has to be seen, yes, as has already been said, so I certainly wouldn't dismiss older people, as many young people today tend to do, because sometimes you also have to look at the world through their lens, because what they've experienced, what times they've lived in, it's just... So even according to surveys, we know that even among the older ones there is no clear consensus between whether socialism is, whether it was even good or not, and for these regimes, we simply also have many older people who still profess the regime before socialism, and just because there is no consensus among them, I certainly wouldn't lump them together as some kind of backward or some kind of opinionally non-conformist, lumping them in with people whose opinion is not relevant and so on. Everyone, everyone comes from a certain background, a certain era, and a lot of things ( ). On the contrary, what I think young people miss, often what I notice, is actually that, {they miss} to see certain things in a broader context, not to look at it from just one part of that optics or from that one spectrum, but just to look at it comprehensively and also to a certain extent. If I were not, I would not say that I understand Euroscepticism or some kind of thought that has also been applied here since the beginning of European integration, or is present, but also to think... I would dare to say that it is good to think about why Euroscepticism arises here, what its reasons are, and overall, I would like to end this way, I would end it.

M: Thank you very much, I think we've hit the roots of Euroscepticism today and if there's nothing else, I'd like to end the recording and this research interview. Agreed? Agreed? Okay. I'm ending the recording.