M: Okay. First, how about we do a quick round of introductions starting from this side [pointing to his right]?

ESFG3_F1: Okay. Hi, I'm ESFG3_F1, and I'm 19 years old. I'm from <name of city>, and that's it.

ESFG3_M2: I am ESFG3_M2, I am 21 and I am from <name of autonomous community in the northwest of Spain>, and I study philosophy.

ESFG3_F3: Hi, I'm ESFG3_F3, I'm 23 and I'm from <name of province and city in the south of Spain>.

ESFG3_F4: Hi, I'm ESFG3_F4, I'm 22 and I'm from <name of city>.

ESFG3_F5: Hi, I'm ESFG3_F5, I'm 24 years old, I study <title of a rather specific study program>.

ESFG3_F6: Hi, I am ESFG3_F6, I study economics. I was born in <title of a Central America country>, but I have been raised here since I was 7 years old.

M: Okay, great-

ESFG3_F6: -And I am 22 years old! Sorry, I don't know if that's important [laughs].

M: Perfect. Well, the first thing I am going to ask you to do is to write down the first three ideas that come to your mind when you think of the European Union.

(long pause) [Noise of papers]

M: In order, we can comment a little bit on what each one has written. For example, starting here [pointing to ESFG3_M1].

ESFG3_M1: The idea of "nation", of "grouped nations" comes to my mind, because at the end of the day the objective of the European Union is that one, to work together for the progress of all. The "Euro" because not all the countries of the European Union use this currency, but almost all of them. And it is also to avoid differences and lower taxes, let's say, in terms of currency exchange. And "Brussels" because, after all, it is the headquarters of the European Union and the meetings and commissions that take place in the country come to mind.

M: Okay. ESFG3_M2?

ESFG3_M2: My ideas are more like general ones. “Spain" came to my mind first, because I was thinking about how relations between Spain and this organization are coordinated. "Cooperation", a bit linked to the above, because of how the relations between the member nations are born. And "Economy" because I was wondering if, in the end, cooperation and relations between countries, and the power that the organization itself has in our countries, goes beyond the economy itself and gets more into ethics or other issues.

ESFG3_F3: Okay, I choose "integration" first, because I believe that the European Union is, at the end of the day, a project of integration, both economic and, right now, political. I have also chosen "pluralism", insofar as the European Union represents not only a nation, or a political form, but integrates different countries, diversity of cultures. And then, in the sense of community, I have chosen the word "community" because I believe that the European Union cannot remain a mere economic integration, but has to move towards political integration.

ESFG3_F4: Yes, first of all I put "union", because in reality it is made up of a lot of countries and therefore they have to work, as far as possible, together. Then, "respect", because each of the countries that make up the European Union are totally different. Even being side by side, they are in a different way, therefore... it is true that it is better, and it works better, as a team. And each one, even if they have these differences, they can (must?) respect each other as much as possible so that there are no conflicts. And then, in third place, "the pacts", those that can be made to achieve the ideas and projects that each one has.

ESFG3_F5: I have put, to begin with, "fragmentation", because I was thinking about the relationship of the European Union with the political and economic powers that are outside the European Union. So, I don't know if I'm wrong about that, but I have the feeling that there are few countries within the European Union that have veto power when it comes to relations with countries outside the European Union. I mean, only the strongest powers, Germany and France, but the smaller countries are a bit like, my second word: "posturing (OL: postureo)". In other words, it seems to me to be something that has a lot of potential for practical purposes, but it seems to me that in reality it is not having all the capacity to act that it could have. That is to say, it {EU} is a bit of an idea of community, of unity and so on, but it remains more of an idea than something that really permeates people's lives.

M: And by "ability to adapt" {moderator error: he misheard “ability to adapt” instead of “ability to act”} are you thinking of anything in particular?

ESFG3_F5: For example, let me see, it occurs to me... I mean, with everything that has been happening, with Putin and so on, I see this idea of "let's make America great again", and the same "let's make Russia great again": great in relation to whom? Great in relation to another great power, which is the group of European powers, which is the European Union. So, if in relation to those powers that are outside the European Union there are very few countries that really have decision-making power, what is the European Union? Is it those three or four countries that really have decision-making power? What are the others doing there then? Under an idea of "equality", there is very little practical equality, it seems to me.

M: Great. ESFG3_F6?

ESFG3_F6: The first word that came to my mind was "coordination". Well, it came to my mind mainly because they are trying... well, the European Union has managed to be a group of countries that have coordinated, for example, the monetary policy, through the Central Bank. “Coordination" also comes to my mind, with policies, for example, of freedom of capital. “Coordination" comes to mind, well, a little bit, since you bring up [addressing ESFG3_F5] the issue of war, the coordination in decision making like "well, as a group of countries, how do we stand on certain issues?”. However, then I also get the next word: "conflict of interest". And I say this a little bit because, well, I think that in life, when you are part of something, there are always positive and negative things, and in this case in the European Union there are winning countries {winners}, we could say. In economic terms, {there are} countries with very strong economies and countries with not so strong economies, with quite different production models that have not really converged. So, there is a conflict of interests within the same union. It seems to me quite… I don't know... it just came to my mind first. Then, also, the third idea that comes to me is "long-term view on the future". It comes {to my mind}, especially because today there are new possibilities that maybe, especially after COVID or maybe with climate change, maybe the European Union has not seen so much in the long term, but more in the medium and short term. And that idea comes to my mind.

M: Great, are there any points that stood out to anyone from what a colleague has commented on?

ESFG3_F5: You [addressing ESFG3_M2] said something about "if we go beyond economics and get into ethics," ...

ESFG3_M2: Yes, well...

ESFG3_F5: And I think that at the level of political organization, not only in the European Union, but at the level of countries and so on, it seems to me that this is something that is absolutely missing. That is, there is an absolute lack of discussions on moral and ethical principles. In other words, we make political decisions or we make economic decisions and so on, assuming that we share a moral code at the level of society, which is not there. In other words, a law is passed now in Spain, the Trans Act, and now everybody have a different opinion, when this law was proposed on the assumption that we all think the same, and it turns out that we do not. And this in one country; if you take it to a group of countries with very different social contexts, it would not be a bad thing to have a common ethics.

[00:10:00]

ESFG3_F3: But [addressing ESFG3_F5] don't you think that's ideal{istic}? [laughs] Don't you think that that is, in a way, unattainable, precisely because of the same thing you say? Because, as you also said, it is very difficult to have equal cultures and equal perspectives because, at the end of the day, for better or worse, ethics itself, is a subjective view. There is no consensus on it. You are not going to be able to converge everyone's ideas on the same thing. So, starting from very basic principles, you can make political decisions that, at the end of the day, are going to set a guide, but you cannot unite all nations under the same ideas.

ESFG3_M2: And I don't think that's necessary either.

ESFG3_F3: Indeed.

ESFG3_F5: It seems to me that some base is missing. I mean...-

ESFG3_M2: -But that power is beyond what a political body can do right now. I mean, I have the impression that what it could do is to create and legalize something, and that... well, a charter, as it has in fact. But to get people assuming those values, that’s more a publicity job than an organizational job in terms of policies, actually.

ESFG3_F5: Yes, but there is also the fact that, beyond thinking about what can or cannot be done, no attempt has been made. I mean, I have not seen any commission in which we send from each country the greatest thinkers in a field, in another field, and in this other field, saying "let's discuss things that are not laws, but that are in the field of morals, in the field of...”. I mean, in this country, in general, we consider this more important, while in that other country we consider more {important}, whatever. That is to say, everything is completely dehumanized.

ESFG3_F3: I think that, at the national level, that is not done either.-

ESFG3_F5: -That's the problem.-

ESFG3_F3: -I mean, a (national?) Parliament does not meet to discuss morality either, because it is understood that Law and Politics... I mean, Europe starts from a conception... Fuck, I do not want to get super technical, but well, that Europe starts from a conception that Law and morality is something different, and then what is taken is the law, which is the iure, the rule, and has no moral implications. So, at a political level, if you want to transfer it, it would be like saying to a German in a Constitutional Court: "hey, take morality into account too", and he {the Court} will say to you: [in an ironic voice] "Sure, man".

M: Okay, sorry, and changing the question a little bit, although related to this: how would you say is your particular position on the European Union in general? What would be you feelings, if you have any, towards the European Union?

ESFG3_M2: May I ask a question?

M: Yes, of course.

ESFG3_M2: Do you mean a feeling exactly or an impression?

M: If you have a particular position on the European Union, or any feelings about it.

ESFG3_M2: Okay. I'm going to give the answer to both. Feeling in terms of some kind of pride, like a pseudo-nationalism among nations? I don't feel anything like that. I mean, it doesn't happen to me. Yes, there is a certain European feeling, but it is in conversations perhaps when extra-European things come up, such as other powers. Then I do feel a bit European. And, because of a certain shared ethic, although you said [addressing ESFG3_F5] that there isn't, I think there is a certain feeling and a certain history that... well, whatever...- (overlapping)

ESFG3_F5: -Implicitly.

ESFG3_M1: Well, maybe we can continue (talking about this later?). Regarding my opinion about what the European Union is: first, I don't know exactly what the implications of the European Union are, but I am a little skeptical about what such a body can do, and it also seems to me that although I am skeptical, I think it is necessary, not only at the European level, but also at the global level. Because it is impossible for climate policies, for example, to be really powerful if they are not carried out at a global level. So, it's a bit of a contradiction, but, well...

ESFG3_F3: I, for example, totally believe in the European project. In fact, in the future I would like to work in the European Union. And I do believe that in a globalized world like today's, the European project has to go further. The problem is that the European project has remained in... well, it was born at the beginning as economic integration, and then the States have strengthened their position, and now the problem is that the States have to give up their competences {so} that there is economic integration, and that they have to create a political community and submit to some controls also on the part of... And it is now that the European citizenship would have to come. So I believe that this is the phase that the European Union is missing: to enter into {European} citizenship. And I do believe that the European Union is very necessary. I mean, to face China, well, because currently... for China, or for the North American multinationals, a country, like Spain, alone, would not be able to face it. So I do see it as necessary.

ESFG3_M2: And Europe does?

ESFG3_F3: Yes.

ESFG3_M2: Oh, okay.

ESFG3_F3: I do believe that there is an integration of countries... Well, because I am of the idea that the European Union, unlike what you have said that "small countries have no representation", I think it is totally the opposite. I think that small countries often block important policies. And I do believe that there is a quite important weight of everyone in the decision making process. And I do believe that this project, if national interests had less weight, and if there really was an idea of "let's create more", and if European citizens also had a more direct participation, it would be possible to achieve more far-reaching policies, and, perhaps, it would create that sense of community that is still emerging, that is not yet felt. I believe that if we participate in it, we could create it.

M: Why do you think there still isn't that sense of community?

ESFG3_F3: Because it is super difficult to talk about a European community when... If a European community is created it is going to be totally within the idea of community-nation that we currently have, where we share a language, where we share a series of {things} since we are born. If we don't create a European community… I think that if it is created is going to be very complicated, and that's why I think it's taking more time. And it is not only about the Erasmus program, or certain programs being created, but it have to go beyond that. And I think that public participation {probably meaning social participation} would be very important in that.

M: The rest, what is your feeling or position towards the European Union?

ESFG3_F6: Well, I have a positive view, but at the same time a skeptical one. I have a fairly positive view because, well, it is true that economically, being part of an economic integration has always been beneficial in the long term. It has not benefited all countries equally, I would like to make that nuance. So, that's the problem there, and I think that's when we start talking a little bit about "well, you feel European"… A bit similar this whole Brexit conflict, some people here in Spain see it as quite negative, others see it as a little bit more positive. So, I think that is the crux of the matter. That is why I also said before "conflict of interest". Within the same countries there is a conflict of interest. And well, I have the impression that the public… I believe that the channels through which the news from the European Union arrive are not as clear as possible, because I see it, I believe that many people receive, for example, many news such as: "the European Union has said so and so {negatively} about this bill". Okay, very well, but no further inquiry is made. Many questions are raised by journalists, and I am not saying that they do a bad job, but I simply think that perhaps they should provide us with a little more information, in order to have a more pluralistic view, and also from perspectives that are a little more in tune with the Union, a little more heterodox, and I think that plurality is lacking, especially on core issues. For example, the ESM funds, I do not know if any of you have heard about it, if you have any idea... Well, I have the feeling, even though I am an Economics student, that sometimes the information that arrives is not entirely clear, concise, precise, it does not make me think about what lies beyond. And well, I am lucky that I study it, and I am a little closer to it, but maybe my parents or other people who do not study these issues in depth will not receive clear information beyond the classroom. So I think that's where the problem lies. And, for example, I do believe that coordination is taking place, {although} not in all aspects: climate change, well, no consensus has been reached at world level... But as regards the ESM funds, I believe that all countries are considering new alternatives and roadmaps that have not been the typical "Austrian rucksack". So, I believe that an interesting debate is taking place, but far from the citizens.

M: Anyone else?

ESFG3_F1: I would like to say that I think that regarding the existing {or lack of} European feeling is also due to the fact that right now we are in a moment of crisis in which it has been very difficult to maintain common policies that give us that group feeling. And, even in the debate on the 'European funds for the recovery after the Coronavirus', there have been many differentiations such as "no, you have done this badly; you have done this well; you have these figures; you have these others". So, I think that this division and this... Also the closing of borders, has delayed us a lot in the construction of a common project as we were previously heading for.

[00:20:05]

M: Okay, another question, more or less along the lines of what ESFG3_F6 pointed out, what benefits do you think it has had for Spain to be part of the European Union?

ESFG3_F1: The CAP {Common Agricultural Policy}. The CAP, directly, is one of the projects to which the European Union devotes more money, more funds. And I think it has many... I mean, I assume that all of us are people who have always lived in the city, but I have a lot of contact with my {country side} village, and I know that the CAP helps a lot the entrepreneurs who want to dedicate themselves to it, to the crops. And well, in fact, it supposes a great peace of mind for those people who tomorrow do not know if bad weather conditions are going to come and they will not be able to have a product at the end of the season. So, the CAP.

ESFG3_M2: Well, as far as a similar vision, but in this case a negative one, I am...-

M: -Well, latter I will ask you about the negative ones, but first let's go with the positive ones [laughs].

ESFG3_M2: Oh, yes, yes, you are right, sorry [laughs]. Well, in my case I come from a fishing village, and my grandfather had boats and so on. And they have certain... I mean, it is legislated when they can fish, how much they can fish. And I am not sure if these regulations are part of what the European Union can or should do, but I think they should do something there, because there are some big problems as we, Spaniards, cannot fish, for example, in ( ) <names of areas or villages in Galicia> and on the other hand the Portuguese can do it, and the Portuguese actually fish there. Then, also, in international waters there are like {regulations} that some boats can fish up to some number of tons and for a limited period of time, but boats from other countries cannot do it. In other words, it is super disorganized. And we, at least as Spaniards, I don't know as Europeans, we are quite disadvantaged.

M: Can anyone think of any other benefits?

ESFG3_F3: Well, for example, Spain, which in the end was coming out of a dictatorship and was lagging behind, I think that without European integration and without the support of the cohesion funds, which in the end have built half of the infrastructure in Spain: highways, roads, aids for health centers... I think that half of the infrastructure that we have in Spain would not be there. I also believe that all the European support, no matter how much it is said that the Euro, for Spain... Yes, it is true that austerity policies were [makes a negative gesture], it was a European decision, but what the Euro has meant {to Spain} is to alleviate a structural problem that Spain had with inflation, it is evident. That is to say, right now we have a currency with which we can get into debt, with which we can have stability, at least in terms of prices. So I think that also on this point the Euro has had its bad things, because of what it has meant, but it has also had its good things in terms of the stability it gives us. And what the Euro still lacks is the construction, the construction of response mechanisms. Also, other policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. And well, contrary to what you think [addressing ESFG3_M2], for Spain it has been... I mean, we are the second country in the European Union with the largest amount of fishing. In fisheries policy we always have a fundamental weight when it comes to decision making. It is true that there have been decisions of the European Union, such as the shipyards, that we cannot have public financing, that is a policy that we should reconsider. If we have countries like China or Korea that are competing with public financing, and there are countries like Spain that compete without public financing, it is obvious that it is going to be a disadvantage. And that is why all the shipyards in Galicia have gone bankrupt, because they have Korea, which gives {the sector} a lot of public money. So, there have also been policies that, within this integration of the internal market and "no public financing" {policy}, have also be in the detriment of Spain.

M: Anyone else want to add something positive?

ESFG3_F6: Yes, I also think it has been quite positive for Spain that it has created quite strong commercial networks with nearby countries. So, I think that is quite positive. And also, the levels of education in Spain I think that, by far, thanks to the European Union we have achieved very good levels of education and public education, which I think is quite interesting. And I also believe that, although there is still a big difference, I believe that we are trying to provide a European social welfare state. And I also say this, also, for example, with respect to the crisis. I, as the daughter of immigrants, and as an immigrant, obviously, when you come to a country with which you{r country} have no agreements, it is quite difficult to settle down. And, when there was the crisis here, many Spanish people went to England, to the United States, and thanks to having... Sorry, not to the United States, to England, to France... And thanks to having that freedom of movement of people, to be able to study, to work, to have your degrees validated… I think it is a very positive thing. Because Latin American people, who have come from other countries, for example, my parents… in order to validate studies, to validate any paper, it is quite expensive, there is a very long bureaucracy. And well, that means that many times they don't have access to the same labor market. And here, if you have a degree, you can compete with people in Brussels, in France, wherever, practically, because they give it allows you. Here it is quite difficult, as a migrant, to build your bases. So well, I think it's quite a positive thing, because the crisis here was very bad, many people emigrated, but it would have been much more difficult to emigrate to go to places without having any kind of residence permit there. Now we can see it with England, that in England right now you can no longer get there and make a living and work. Right now, you get there, you work in the black economy, you are illegal. In other words, you get arrested. Well, irregular, not illegal, you become irregular. So, I think that this is quite positive for the advancement of societies, and that makes it possible to have, not a social ladder, but to have quite... not equal opportunities, but at least at the educational level.

ESFG3_F3: And, I think within that, the Schengen area. Everything that has supposed the opening of borders, and that you can travel freely within the European Union is a huge step.

M: Okay, and now what disadvantages do you think it has had for Spain to be part of the European Union?

ESFG3_F6: I believe that the productive structure has been quite conditioned. I think it has. Because, well, I recently saw in class that, internationally, there is an international division of labor. We can see, more or less, that there are countries that specialize in certain sectors. And sometimes we think "well, why in this sector?”. Can they really move to other sectors? There are, I think, conditioning factors, obviously, that come from years ago, structural of each country, and then I also think that there is a struggle of interests. I think we can see it, for example, with Germany. Germany is a major exporter of high-value cars, for example Audi and so on. And well, what happens? Here also those cars are produced, or at least a productive part, because there are factories. And well, yes, it is true, it has helped the Spanish productive fabric, but really where it has received the economic value that has helped to improve is in the sales directly from Germany, which computes to its GDP. Here in Spain, well, they are parts, because we have factories, but this struggle for the value really takes place in these countries. So, sometimes it is difficult for countries to change their productive structures when you are conditioned by larger countries or countries that directly relocate their productivity. For example, tourism... or industry. I could give many examples. I believe that Spanish industry has been quite conditioned by the rest of its counterparts.

M: Can the rest of you think of any other disadvantages?

ESFG3_F3: Okay, I think that first of all, not only at national level, but the European Union has been oriented towards a production model, since the 80s, very export-oriented, and in saying "we are going to create a strong currency to face all the exports". So, what has this led to? To encourage everything to be produced in markets such as China, East Asia, Africa, and what do we find today? Well, we have a production chain in which almost everything is produced outside European territory. Because, even if we talk about Germany: Germany has a deficit of microchips, it cannot finish cars, unbelievable. Poland is almost the same. And what are we left with in the European Union? We are left with the idea that we are going to focus on financial capital, which the United Kingdom did very well, but now it has left. And we have a deficit problem of what is being produced now in the world, and in new technologies we ceded that space to the United States and we ceded it to China. And now we find a European Union that, yes, we have capital, very important human capital, because we still have good universities and we still have good laboratories, but... And this is not only happening in Spain, Italy and Greece, which may be the worst, because we come with already weakened production models, so this comes as a double stroke, but France and Germany are also being left out. So, I think that is the problem: how production in Europe has been oriented.

[00:30:12]

M: Does anyone have any more points to add?

ESFG3_F5: I wanted to say that... I don't know if it is directly {related}, I don't think so, directly related to the European Union, but the perception of Spain in Europe is catastrophic. I did an Erasmus, I went to Great Britain, when they were still in the European Union, ( ) to one of the best universities in the world, with such prestige that if you went there you would say "Oh my God!" ... But the level of education in England, compared to Spain... In other words, I don't trust anymore an English engineer to do anything for me, no way. I mean, three years of studies and four hours of classes per week, I said "Oh my God, what is this?”. But then you, as a Spaniard, go to England and, excuse me, but you are shit. It's like that. You are the waiter; you are... very ironically: what Latin Americans are in Spain, Spaniards are in the rest of Europe. We could learn a little bit from that. If you go to France… I was living in Paris, and, I mean, they look down their noses at you because you are Spanish, period. I don't have any kind of nationalist feeling, I don't feel identified with the Spanish nation at all, but the fact that they look bad at you for being Spanish... "let's assume that you have a worse educational level, let's assume that you are poor so you have to go outside Spain to work, and that you have access to precarious jobs", you know? When, then, if you look at the reality, it is in comparison with some countries of the European Union, the level of education in practical terms, not in terms of... I don't know, the teachers, the complaints... I mean in practical terms in terms of the education we receive, it seems to me that it is much better than in other countries, and yet the perception {towards Spaniards in Europe} is horrible.

ESFG3_F1: I, in line with what ESFG3_F5 has said, it seems to me that there are first class countries and second class countries. And it is even promoted that Germany is the best, it is the number one, and Spain on the other hand, Spain, Italy, Portugal, we are the last, we are the worst, the poorest, and the ones that lag behind Europe. And I believe that this is not true.

M: Okay, does anyone else want to add anything to this?

(short pause)

M: Well, now I am going to ask you to imagine for a moment a scenario, in which there is a very important natural disaster in some country of the European Union. How do you think the European Union should act in that scenario? For example, an earthquake, a forest fire, floods...

(long pause)

ESFG3_F6: I understand that it is a country-first competence. I imagine you're talking about one scenario that can't be taken care of by one country itself, right?

M: Yes.

ESFG3_F6: Well, I think this happens a little bit in Spain, right? There was like a forest fire between Portugal and Spain, in Galicia [looking at ESFG3_M1]?

ESFG3_M2: Excuse me?

ESFG3_F6: There was a fire, wasn't there?

ESFG3_M1: Oh, sorry, yes, yes.

ESFG3_F6: So what I understood from the news is that... Well, I don't know how they were coordinated, but that there was a part of Portuguese firefighters and a part of Spanish firefighters. I don't know if [looking at ESFG3_M1]...

ESFG3_M2: Yes, well, because the border is... yes, yes... because in that part (is common?) also.

(long pause)

ESFG3_M2: So, regarding this... I think that if the European Union exists, it is for these things, as far as it is possible. And if the other countries do not involve in the security of the citizens of this {affected} country, I mean within the European Union, then why would we have the European Union? It is as easy as that.

ESFG3_F3: I also believe that, in these situations, the principle of mutual assistance between countries... But, of course, actually that also implies {spending} money, so many times countries get involved as far as national public opinion allows.

ESFG3_M2: But you already know that when you enter the European Union, I think.

ESFG3_F3: Yes, yes.

ESFG3_F1: I don't think it is so far from what we are currently experiencing {referring to the COVID-19 pandemic}, although it has not been in a single country, but in all European nations. And it has already been seen that when the Coronavirus began to break out, Europe, rather than helping, turned its back on the countries that were facing it. It did not seek to create a common protocol, it did not seek to provide a direct solution. So, I think that currently the performance in these cases leaves something to be desired, and I think that there should be a more common project to know how to deal with these situations, since at the end of the day they {also} are going to be affected.

ESFG3_F5: I agree with that, and also it seems to me that it boils down to the fact that there must be an overcoming of individual nationalism in pursuit of a United States of Europe. I mean, as an idea of values, so to speak. Like, "expect mutual aid, if you are part of the same community. What do I mean, "mutual aid"? That you are helping yourself, because you are part of the same... If I help someone from Aragon, it is not mutual help, it is the same help because we are in the same country. So, a little bit of taking that idea to Europe, to say: "I have the same responsibility to help this country, because we are part of the same community". And this, there have to be incentives so that... Because things work like that, without incentive things are not done, period, that's how it is. So there must be incentives so that, if you help so-and-so, then so-and-so commits to help you if something happens to you.

ESFG3_F1: But I think that is a mistake. I also don't think it’s right that you seek to help a person or a country just to get something in return.-

ESFG3_F5: -Morally speaking, no. But I think it does for practical purposes. In politics, in general, things are not done unless you are going to get something in return; unless, “because I have helped you, I owe you a debt” {probably meaning the opposite: “Because you helped me, I owe you”}. I don't think it's ideal, I don't think it's something to go towards, but it's the objective thing to do.

M: And why doesn't this seem right to you, ESFG3_F1?

ESFG3_F1: Why? I believe that things should not be done to get something in return. I believe that you have to help a person because the person needs it, not because you are actually going to get something in return. I have simply been educated in that moral, if you want to call it that. I have those values, that you have to help people regardless of what you want. Obviously up to certain limits. But you have to help, to look for the common good, because at the end of the day we all belong to the same community, and we all live together.

ESFG3_F5: I agree with you, but as she [referring to ESFG3_F3] has said before: the relationship between morality and legality. You [addressing ESFG3_F3] have made reference to that. So, while I agree, it is an act of faith that a country, for morality, whatever. So, there is the positive reinforcement of "if you do something for me, then you get a debt and I get such and such", and also the negative reinforcement, which I think is even better. Like, "Something is going on within the community you belong to. Won't do anything? Well, there will be retaliation for that, because you have a responsibility to this community".

M: Okay, and going back to the example-

ESFG3_F3: -Yes, for example, the migration crisis. When there was the migration crisis, it was not because the Czech Republic, in its generosity, wanted to accept refugees. It was because they were told "everything has to be accepted here", and it was almost an order from Germany.

M: Okay, and going back to the case of the natural disaster, how do you think Spain should act if a natural disaster were to occur in another EU country?

ESFG3_F1: I don't think we have to follow a national strategy, that is, that of the nation itself. I think it has to be a group one, from all the nations towards the country, because, at the end of the day, we have to work, as you said at the beginning, ESFG3_F4, we have to work together to achieve a greater good.

ESFG3_F6: I do not agree with you. I mean, I understand that we are working for a common goal, but what Spain has to do in a natural disaster is not so much {ask} "what do I have to do", but "where is it? And first see if I can help or not". I mean, if it is, perhaps, at the other end of the European Union, I think there is little that can be done: mobilize troops, mobilize people, mobilize, perhaps, income {meaning funds}. First we have to see the big picture, and then see if Spain can do {something} or how much it can help.

ESFG3_F3: I differ in that because I think that even if the problem is in Romania, as now for example Spain belongs to NATO, it has mobilized troops in Ukraine, and it is not because {meaning although?} it is neighbor Morocco, but because it is a sense of seeing common cooperation. So, I think that as this summer has happened with the fires: Spain has sent troops to Greece, as it has sent to Turkey, and Turkey does not even belong to the European Union. But it is because of the sense of common cooperation.

M: ESFG3_F4?

ESFG3_F4: I also think the same as ESFG3_F3 and ESFG3_F1, because, in reality... Well, they are still different countries, but in each different country there are people, there is an organization. So, whether you like it or not, even if it does not belong to the European Union, or if it does belong to the European Union, those countries will surely consider it as an act of solidarity, and they will take it into account. Then, maybe they will make a pact or {when} they see some discrepancy, or whatever, then they will say: "OK, Spain has helped. Maybe if we propose this to them, we will make them participate in something ...", which may or may not help us... So, the question is also to have a little better visibility {meaning presence} of Spain... And not only that a country has to be united both inside and outside. I don't know if I have explained myself well, but the point is that it doesn't matter. If your neighbor is here, or even if he is not your neighbor, the point is that... yes, obviously it is very important to know if you can help in that country, or what can be done, because not only with the intention is enough. But with the intention, at least, it is already a step, to know, and to get to something. At least, maybe, if you can't bring those incentives, maybe you can do something else. Maybe not directly, but indirectly, and at least... Maybe it does not only involve Spain, but it can also involve other countries to get to that fire or whatever is happening in that place, and at least not only one country is involved, but also other countries can see the actions. Because, whether you like it or not, human beings also act out of selfishness, and that is why many times there are ruptures. Not only the political ones, but also the social ones and the relationships themselves.

[00:41:39]

M: Okay, and following the example of the natural disaster, do you think that some EU countries should support more than others? Should they contribute more than others?

ESFG3_F3: Yes, because I believe that territorial size also has an influence. I also understand that a country like Malta is going to have a much smaller response than a country like France. For example, let's assume that there is no common defense, let's assume that, if there were a common defense cooperation mechanism, then obviously, having the military power that France has, it would really have to, in a way, not lead, but it does have a strength, or it can have a leadership, that some countries are not going to have.

M: Okay. The rest?

[Everyone responded affirmatively]

M: And why do you think some have to contribute more than others?

ESFG3_F4: Because everyone has different capabilities.

ESFG3_F1: Simply because of that. Of course, in other words, we come back to the same thing. They are all in the same community and obviously... And yes, it is true that some countries may contribute more than others, but that does not mean that it is inequality. Because there may be people who see it as inequality. {We are talking all the time} about the union, that there should not be differences, but in the end we come back to the same thing. They are different powers, they are different countries, and each one has its own economic resources. So, it may be that some countries cannot contribute as much as they would like to… But that maybe is a different issue... (short pause)

ESFG3_M2: I think it is quite important that there is a certain... that countries can contribute differently to these conflicts because, among other things, although in the public eye the ideas that flourish in conversations about this is "solidarity and cooperation" and these kinds of issues, I think one of the fundamental reasons that the European Union has is {to ensure} that there is no country potentially dangerous to the other countries that are there {in the EU}. It's a bit catastrophic, perhaps. But if we have been at peace for so many years... well, "peace" with a lot of quotation marks... it is in a way because of the interdependence of the member countries, I think. That is why I was also a bit curious about the ideas of self-sufficiency which, well, I think is what some of your proposals {referring to the rest of the participants} were pointing to before, … such as "no, because, with the microchips, the fact that Germany has to depend on whoever for...". In other words, these ideas could also be taken to the national arena. Spain has to depend on France for, whatever. I don't know, I don't think this is a strong problem. I think interdependence is important. And, in fact, if some countries have a lot of power over others, and {in} the international {chess} board nowadays, it is because they are very autonomous in that sense.

ESFG3_F6: I just want to nuance that a little bit, talking about what I said. I was referring not so much to being self-sufficient, but to the fact that in global production chains, people think that "the countries that export the most are the ones that do the best", and that is not the case. It depends on what you export; exporting fruits and vegetables is not the same as exporting technological devices. So, what I was referring to was that the trade that Spain has most, that is to say, all the value it generates, is between the members themselves. I agree with what you said: this interdependence is positive. I was referring more to that. What’s the problem? If it is difficult when there is already a production organization that has been in place over time, both because of the production structures of the countries themselves and because of the commercial networks that have been created, it is difficult to change. It is very difficult, for example, for Spain to start marketing high-value products if they do not have the same production structure, if they do not have the employees to adapt to the new market needs. And, in the end, what does Germany do? I don't know if I am explaining myself because it is not easy to explain in a schematic way, but basically what generates the most GDP, of Germany, from those cars, they capture the value generated, only Germany, but behind there is a production chain that has gone, for instance in the assembly, in factories here in Ávila, in Spain, which then have gone to other factories to make assemblies in Romania. So, in the end, it is true that the economy has worked, but the one who receives the highest economic level {meaning revenues?} continues to be Germany, because it is the one who has marketed this high technology-intensive product. That is what I was referring to.

M: Okay, but everyone says that some countries should contribute more and different criteria have been used. Those who have not answered yet, what do you think is the criterion that should work: population, territory, GDP, economy...?

ESFG3_F3: I believe that {it should be} the same criteria followed for the European budget: GDP and territory.

M: Okay. The rest?

ESFG3_M2: I think that territory maybe not so much.

ESFG3_F1: I agree.

ESFG3_F6: I think contamination levels. It should be the most optimal criterion. I mean, you can have either a very big country or a very small country, and have no idea how much each country pollutes. And then also in the European Union, perhaps those of you who study law know it much better, I also understand that they can buy pollution rights, right? So I think this is the trap, and a little bit the crux of the matter.

ESFG3_F3: But this contribution criterion does not reflect the real economy of each country. For example, in the European Union, the countries that can pollute the most are Romania, Bulgaria or Poland, because they have a productive economy that is 20 years behind, {they’re} still in the transition process, for example, {while} the Netherlands can be one of the most advanced and pollutes much less, but because a lot of its production has been diverted to those countries. So, I do not think that this is a fair criterion, nor does it really reflect the situation of the countries or... In the end, I think that this would be very complicated that you, in a health need, have to do more because of what you pollute than because of your means, or your capacity.- (overlapping)

ESFG3_F6: -No, no, I mean that-

MA: -Guys, a parenthesis here: we love that you're excited about the topic, but it's a focus group not a debate, we're interested in opinions. Yes, it's true that some of you are doing a very good job in arguing it, which is great, but let's try to stick to the questions, please.

ESFG3_F6: The question would be?

M: What would be the criteria to be followed?-

ESFG3_F6: -For decontamination?

M: No. Do you all agree that there are countries that should contribute more than others in the case of a natural disaster? What should be the criteria for a country to contribute more?

ESFG3_F5: The capacities of each country depend on what it is... I mean, it depends. If it is the volcano in the Canary Islands, the proximity seems to me to be something that... I mean, if Latvia can come and send its people {referring to disaster response personnel} to the Canary Islands {it’s great}, but someone coming from Morocco or Spain is going to arrive sooner. I mean, it's a practical thing. And then, if it is a disaster where, for example, the whole middle part of Europe has gone to shit because it has been a huge earthquake, that is... Just like when you rent an apartment and there is a person who pays much more and another one who pays much less, in a much bigger room and a much smaller one {respectively}. So a percentage. "You pay more, but you have access to the bigger {room}. You pay less, but...", like this. It is a proportion according to the capacities of each country. But I think that, I don't know… I hope it will be done that way, it seems to me the most logical thing to do [laughs].

M: Now, changing the scenario: instead of the natural disaster, if a financial crisis like the one that occurred in 2008 in the economic crisis were to happen again, and another country other than Spain were badly affected, how do you think Spain should act in that case?

[00:50:10]

ESFG3_M2: It depends, too. That is, it depends on the situation in which Spain finds itself and it depends on the incentives it can give. And well, I am not an economist, I don't know either... but more or less with the same criteria that we have pointed out for the previous point.

ESFG3_F3: Well, let's see, I think that currently Spain can only do a little, because, first, our Central Bank systems in the European Union are unified, so it would have to be a common response, within the Eurogroup, and then a solution could be found. And well, right now there are already mechanisms that did not exist and have taken a long time, such as the... MFS, I think it was... well, the Financial Banking System, the European financial organization that has a money reserve, so in case these things happen it could act faster now.

(long pause)

M: And do you think it would depend on the country that is affected for Spain to contribute or not? Or should it be the same?

ESFG3_M2: You mean, for instance: if it is Germany, yes, and if it is France, no?

M: For example.

ESFG3_F6: I do not think so. I think that more or less like ESFG3_F3 said, that in the end if suddenly there is a financial crisis like the one in 2008, new mechanisms have been created. And I do not know the criteria they are following right now, but I know there is a financial fund, I know there is money they are trying to have. But anyway, if it is such a big thing, well, I think that it is not what Spain would do, but the whole. Because, for example, what Europe does not want is for one of its countries to go bankrupt, at the end of the day. So, I do not know… What would Spain do? Well, Spain would try to provide solutions in conferences, I imagine, with its experts. But, in the end, it is not so much Spain's decision alone, but what the committee that has the money will do.

ESFG3_F3: Besides, the Eurogroup, and let's put a country, however small it may be, if the risk of contagion to the rest of the European economy is very high, then what the Eurogroup says will be done, and surely it is the one that has the financial mechanisms.

M: And if Spain were to be negatively affected, how do you think the rest of the European Union countries should act?

ESFG3_F1: In the same way. As I said before, I believe that in these matters we must have a common policy and not individual action plans. Because the resources are common and so are the plans, the ways of acting.

ESFG3_F5: And besides, they should all act. I mean, if you have a budget to solve what has happened, X {amount of money}, and {only} 5 {countries} participate instead of 28, the budget will be much bigger for each country. In other words, it is the same as before. Spain helps, but if all the others help as well, I would say. For example, I think of the whole thing in Mediterranean {referring to migration from Africa}. It's like: “okay, we help because we are in the Mediterranean”, but what about the rest of Europe? Isn't this a European problem? You, if you are in Germany, as you have no sea, it is not a problem for you that there are people dying in the middle {of the sea}... it cannot be. It can't be. So, I help because geographically I am at a point that, if I don't help, I would be an absolutely horrible person/country. But, it cannot be that I, because I am forced by a situation, am the only one who is helping, or one of the only ones. And in that scenario, the same thing.

ESFG3_F6: But you [addressing the moderator] mean that if Spain were in crisis, how should they act?

M: Exactly, the rest of the countries

ESFG3_F6: All other countries.

M: Yes.

ESFG3_F6: Well, in the end, what was done... I refer a little bit to the current crisis. The economies closed, many of the ( ) have come out, then in the end it has been tried, with the COVID... It's just that a financial crisis is not the same as the COVID crisis. So, I would like you to be a little more specific [addressing the moderator] if you could.

M: A financial crisis.

ESFG3_F6: Okay.

ESFG3_F3: Well, in a financial crisis, Spain, being the fourth largest economy in the Euro zone, implies a huge contagion risk for the rest of the countries, which really cannot afford to sink an economy like the Spanish one. In fact, when it was about to happen in 2013, after there had been the fall of... that Greece even had to stop public payments, that is when Draghi said: "I will do everything possible for us to get out". Otherwise, if Spain and Italy were to fall, and they were already on their way, if there had been no bailout... And well, in Italy, thank goodness, because Draghi already dictated a purchase of debt in the secondary market... We have a risk of contagion that would make the Euro collapse completely.

M: And do you think the response of the other EU countries would depend on the country? Would all countries contribute the same or would there be differences?

ESFG3_F6: I think there would be differences in terms of repayment of the debt. I don't think it's so much about "well, we'll lend you money" if it doesn't work. The problem is not that countries are indebted, but whether they can meet those payments over time. So, I think that... And what happened to Spain in that financial crisis was that it had to give, for example, Article 135, "pay the debt first of all, first". So the country in crisis is going to be very conditioned. And, obviously, Germany is going to have... it is the country that contributes most economically, or contributed at that time in the financial crisis, so it is going to be very interested in ensuring that the repayment conditions, the terms of the country to which the loan has been granted, are fulfilled, because it is the country that has lent the money.

ESFG3_F1: Maybe the aid given does not depend on the country, but the social debate that will be created will change in terms of the country that is being helped. When Spain was helped, when Italy was helped, in the end the stigma that we are the poor, we are the second-rate countries, grew a lot. And, on the other hand, if Germany or France were to be rescued, "they deserve it because they are the ones who carry the European Union on their shoulders". That is the feeling I get, of what would happen.

ESFG3_F5: But not only that, but, going out of that argument, I am... I mean, on a personal level, I would be more reluctant to leave my money to someone who is in a horrible economic situation and it seems that he is going to continue in a horrible situation and is never going to pay me back. So, that's kind of the idea: more reluctance to bail out a country that is going to take eight thousand centuries to pay me back and that doesn't have a thriving economy. Well, because there are countries within the European Union that are there, but just for the sake of being there, because in the relationship they have with the rest of the powers they do not have the right, they do not have real voting rights. I mean, out of the 28, I think there are only six countries that have the right to veto with NATO (sic). Only six.

ESFG3_F3: But there is no veto right in the Eurogroup. In the Eurogroup what happens is that the vote is unanimous, and even if Malta says it does not want to give money, it is not given, because it is unanimous.

M: And, in that scenario in which there is a crisis and Spain receives aid or support from other European Union countries, do you think it should come with restrictions or conditions?

ESFG3_F3: To me, for example, the condition of respecting the rule of law and freedoms in order to receive New Generation funds seems totally correct.

ESFG3_F6: I believe that all countries, regardless of whether they are in the European Union, when a loan has been granted, conditionalities have been set. We would have to see if they are laxer or not. For example, the conditions that Spain had, in my opinion, with the repayment of the debt, were quite lax, and what this means is that many times the countries never get out of that cycle of quite weak economies, because they have to pay too high interest rates, or because they do not get a suitable debt installment. So, it is a little bit a question of what conditions they are given, because there will always be conditions, whether they are more flexible or not.

ESFG3_F3: But, well, the interest rate that Spain was given and that Spain is paying, because there are people who buy debt in the secondary market, is very low.

ESFG3_F6: Today, but in the 2008 financial crisis- (overlapping)

ESFG3_F3: -That was because of the risk premium.

ESFG3_F6: But in the 2008 financial crisis, many countries were suffocated by debt repayment.

ESFG3_F3: Sure, and that's why the secondary market solution.

M: Sorry, but going back to the question, would you think it would be reasonable if there were conditions?

[All answer affirmative at the same time]

MA: I find it interesting that you have mentioned other conditions beyond those related to the economic sphere, for example, those related to the rule of law. And, along these lines, any other conditions?

ESFG3_F3: Yes, I think that, well, in this line, for example, with the New Generation funds, I think it is interesting what was raised in the Commission, and later in the Council, of certain countries that, well, that have already been sentenced more than once for non-compliance with the Rule of Law: Poland, Hungary, I will say it. Yes, conditions should be imposed on them. Because, surely, their economy is one of the fastest growing, because it is the one that receives most of these funds; not only the Generation, also the cohesion funds. Though, they do not respect the principles on which it is based, according to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, such as "dignity, equality and the rule of law". And you have judges of a court that are been named by him {the President}… first, he has taken away the years that the judges can be in the court, he has cut the years... Moreover, the President can say how many years the judges are in the court. And this is, in fact, totally breaking a judicial system, an independence, and how important this is for a society.

[01:00:00]

M: Well, now changing the question: taking into account that there are inequalities within the European Union and between countries, do you think that the European Union should have a common scheme to address this inequality?

ESFG3_F6: It already has one. It already has. Cohesion funds many times what they have helped is to try to equalize the levels of development. Not economic growth, but development among the different countries. Because Spain, since it joined the European Union, and many countries as a whole as well, such as Portugal, have improved development conditions, improvement, for example, in infant mortality, life duration {life expectancy}. The cohesion funds have helped many people to have subsidized housing, which has been paid for by these funds. So, it is already there, it is already being done. That it can be improved, or not, that's another {story}...

ESFG3_F3: Well, yes, the cohesion funds are mainly for the regions, but at the European level there are two very interesting projects. One would be the European unemployment fund, which in the event that a country has structural unemployment, there would be a fund to pay unemployment benefits, and it could help. Many countries, in the case of Spain for young people, in Italy to pay for everything that economic unemployment entails, which is also generated by productive policies. And well, there is also the social fund, which is also incipient, which above all is to help alleviate those inequalities that may be created between countries. But of course, these are two projects that are still there...

M: What do the rest think?

ESFG3_F1: Can you repeat the question, please? [laughs]

M: Yes. I put it another way: do you think that inequality between countries in the European Union is a problem that should... is a problem, to begin with? And, is it a problem that the European Union should face?

ESFG3_F1: Inequality in economic terms?

M: In all the terms you can think of.

ESFG3_M2: But how is inequality calculated? I mean, is it the GDP divided by territory? I don't know how to understand it.

M: As you understand inequality. Inequality is in many areas, we cannot list all the areas in which it is.

MA: The idea is to see what you think about the term 'inequality', what you associate it with.

M: That’s right. Whatever you can imagine with inequality between countries in the European Union. Do you think that is a problem for the European Union to deal with? Or is it the responsibility of each country?

ESFG3_M2: I don't know how far the competences of the European Union countries extend.

M: But besides the competencies of the European Union.

ESFG3_M2: I think so, I think so. Because just as we should not allow certain things, such as those we were saying before, like the rule of law and fundamental values {not being complied}, neither should we allow situations of extreme discomfort. But it is also a problem because, at least in terms of interfering with values and ( ), of course it seems like putting countries in a situation where they cannot say no. And at the end of the day, that is also a problem. And at the end of the day that also raises problems for me in saying, well, what power does a country have and what sovereignty have, which in the end they have, to say no to those conditions. I don't know, but well. I think I have answered.

ESFG3_F5: When I think about equality... well, this is a bit far-fetched, but well. Let's think about the right to housing, or the right to life: if I tell you "either you pay me or I kill you", what right to life is that? None. Your freedoms are: zero. Because you have to pay me. Then, right to housing: "either you pay me or you have to leave". What right to housing is that? And it is a basic, fundamental human right, which is established in the United Nations, among others. So, it seems to me that it is necessary to make a revisionism {probably meaning “to review and change” things} from the most basic of all. Because, I mean, at a personal level or at the level of citizen or person, if you go to live in... well, when I lived in Paris, I had to become a vegetarian in Paris because I couldn’t afford a steak, I couldn’t [laughs]. I couldn’t because then I don't pay the rent. And also “let’s see how I will manage to pay the rent”. Because the Euro, OK... But, I don't care if it’s Spain or France, access to housing is something that really affects citizens, beyond their countries exports and so on. It is something that affects people personally. It seems to me that in these things there has to be the greatest possible equality, in all countries. And, what is more, we have to review what we are calling "rights". Because if I have the right to housing, I have to pay for my house, because I have the right to housing, and living under a bridge is not a right to housing. So, if you don't pay, they take away your house? Then what right to housing do I have? Why can't I eat a steak if I want to? Just because I don’t have money? Oh, then I have no right to eat. So, I don't have the right to live either, because if I don't eat I die.

ESFG3_M1: Well, but, I mean- (overlapping)

ESFG3_F3: -[laughs] Okay, it's just that...

[Several speak]

M: Well, here I am going to intervene, excuse me. I am going to take, in fact, the example that ESFG3_F3 was talking about, unemployment, as an example. Do you think there should be a European scheme, at the European level, to address unemployment, for example? Or is it a matter that each country on its own has to take responsibility for?

ESFG3_F6: Yes, I think it is both. No country, being a member of the European Union… it is true that many things have been ceded {she refers to competences}, but there has always been a tug of war between "what my country, my national sovereignty, wants on one side, and the whole Eurogroup, the Eurochamber {meaning the European Parliament} on the other", or whatever. So, in the end, it is not independent, it is not eliminating {meaning incompatible}.

ESFG3_F3: Let's see, I think that... well, I am getting into messy land here [laughs]. But, if we already have a common monetary policy, which makes us have a currency that in many cases, as in the Spanish case, is expensive, it is a currency that... for example, in Germany 1 franc {sic, probably meaning Deutsche Mark} is equivalent to 2 euros, and for us, how much is one euro in pesetas? It was 133 pesetas, wasn't it? Or thereabouts. So, we have lost capacity. Well, obviously, if we have a common monetary policy, we also should have a common fiscal policy. And a common fiscal policy is reached through measures such as unemployment, such as programs for productive development {meaning economic development}. If a European Union were to be achieved, it would be based on an American model, where California is the one that leads the GDP, and its GDP may be at the level of Spain, but of course, California fiscally helps Detroit or less developed States. And that is really what is needed here in Europe.

ESFG3_F5: Indeed. Especially because if there is unemployment in Spain then all the people are going to move to France, then why would France want to help Spain? If it is receiving a lot of people who is eager to work and everything. France might {not} care... I mean, what incentive does France have to say, "no, all these people coming to improve my economy, I prefer not to, I prefer them to stay in Spain and improve the Spanish economy"? Why would it say that? There has to be a common responsibility. Indeed.

M: Well, and taking the example you were talking about [referring to ESFG3_F3], from California and Detroit, and you were saying that it doesn't happen here in Europe, why do you think it doesn't happen here?

ESFG3_F1: Because we see it as different nations. There is a separation between what is Europe and what is Spain, Italy, Germany, France, etcetera. There is no national feeling like in the United States, which is inculcated from the time they are little, and that no matter how badly Texas and California get along, outside the United States they are brothers and they will die for each other.

ESFG3_F6: I am against it, because I believe that employment policies can provide aid from the European Union to improve the situation in that country, in the sense of trying to provide counselors, to encourage more {job} positions for higher degrees, which is much more dynamic when it comes to inserting the unemployed population into the economy. So, I think it is difficult to have a policy that is the same for everyone. I do believe that efforts are being made so that, from Europe, each country is treated individually. What cannot be done is to treat all countries {with the same} unemployment {measures}, because they do not have the same productive structure or the same capacities. I do believe that there is an attempt to help, but we cannot ask for the same thing. And also, as far as inequality is concerned, the Eurogroup is already talking about tax differentiation, that there should not be a very big gap, in order to avoid effectively tax havens within Europe. So, I believe that we are trying to have this debate in the European Union.

ESFG3_F3: But, for example, there is currently a common European labor policy and common unemployment. And how unemployment affects our GDP, the Spanish GDP, is not the same as what affects the Spanish people. What the Spanish State spends on unemployment is not the same as what Germany spends, because Spain has structural unemployment. So, in order to alleviate this structural unemployment, a European fund is necessary. Because in this way, that money, if the Spanish State does not spend it on unemployment, it can spend it on other policies. And in this way we also help to improve our productive market, investing that surplus we {would} have in other policies. And that is the same thing that happens by setting the example of "why is it not done?". Because the conscience of a nation state and of the European Union has been configured as something that is there, above us, and it is the one we blame for our faults. National politics has tended to use the European Union when things don't go well. "This is not going well {it’s because of} European policy". Or: "This worked out well for us? Well, this {is our achievement}”. And, really, what is missing are spaces beyond integration. We have remained in the economic and monetary area and we have to go to the political area, i.e. unemployment, education, health. And that, in the United States, obviously the policies implemented in Detroit are not the same as those implemented in California, but there is money given to Detroit to implement them, and then they can manage them as the State wishes.

[01:10:35]

M: Well. Taking into account that we have talked about many areas, let's say, where the relationship or cooperation within Europe is necessary: unemployment, natural disaster, economic crisis... Do you think there is any other relevant area that we have not mentioned where European mutual support, or cooperation, is necessary?

ESFG3_F1: Energy.

ESFG3_F3: Absolutely. I think that in the European energy policy it is essential that there is much more integration, because we have, on the one hand, Russia, on the other hand, the United States, and on the other hand, Morocco and Algeria. And actually, right now, the tensions in the Commission regarding "yes to renewable energy", having French interests, the gas coming from Russia and the Nord Stream II being built, which comes and goes directly through Germany, then I think there should be more integration in that. Because, really, we have an energy deficit and we are very vulnerable in Europe, except for countries that have invested more in nuclear energy, the other countries... {for instance} Spain, if Morocco right now says "I don't give you gas", then what? And if Russia says the same right now to Poland or Germany, then what?

ESFG3_F5: I find it amazing that things as basic as light are private. I mean, I think to myself "who has come up with this?”, because, of course, there is no control, … Besides, if so and so let’s whoever governs, or was a member of Parliament, wherever, and then he buys shares of... and then he controls... I mean, it seems incredible to me that this is legal. Then, since the same person who is taking advantage of the system should not be the one to control the system, to regulate it, there will have to be a much broader regulation of the system. In this case, I believe that it would have to be the European Union. And also, providing incentives to get out of the dirty energies, so to speak. Because the interest of dirty energies is a private economic interest.

M: Any other areas you can think of?

ESFG3_F3: Can I answer her [referring to ESFG3_F5]? So, for example, competition between companies is a European competence, that is, if, for example... That is why the Market Commission had to be made in Spain in this way, so that if a Spanish company committed practices such as dumping and so on, so that its super controlled by the EU. But the problem is that the European Union has always been against public aid. And what has it realized lately? Well, that we have sold very important energy sectors to financial funds from China, from out there, which now have our electricity in their hands.

M: Okay, and any other areas you can think of?

ESFG3_F4: Yes, I believe that in gender equality and education policy. I think that the debate, the debates that there are currently, they are quite deficient, in my personal opinion.

ESFG3_F5: And, also, the issue of imperialism, I think it is something that should be talked about, in Europe, as a general thing. Because here, I find it amazing that there is more personal responsibility in the United States than in Europe. I mean, more historical responsibility, so to speak.

ESFG3_M2: What do you mean?

ESFG3_F5: I mean, for example, in the United States they are discovering graves of indigenous schools under white {people} schools that have been built later, and they are asking for responsibilities, decisions are being made. Better or worse, that is another debate. But the fact that none of this is being done in Europe, when imperialism is our fault, historically, and that there is no discussion about it, I just think we should talk about it. We should not only look at economic things, which is very important, but also at the values on which Europe is based.

ESFG3_F6: I totally agree with that. I think Europe has a big problem in admitting the institutional racism that exists. I think that, if we talk about immigration, there is little talk about integration. These are debates that are taking place in the United States. The integration of migrant populations. I believe that it is a debate that has not yet arrived. And I believe that in Spain it has not arrived much because here there is a much more delayed opening to immigration, due to the Franco regime and so on, with respect to France and other countries. But I do believe that the public debate should be carried out, a little bit as a society, and try to… well, yes.

M: Okay. Can anyone think of any other areas, besides those we've talked about, where support within the European Union is relevant?

ESFG3_F6: Environment.

(short pause)

M: Okay, just to close, how would you say that these issues that we have discussed are related to the future of the European Union? Or how do you see the future of the European Union taking into account what we have talked about?

(short pause)

M: For example, ESFG3_F4?

ESFG3_F4: Well, I don't know, it depends. Because there are many shortcomings, but as in everything. So, not like that either. It is very difficult to reach a joint opinion. But of course, not all the countries are going to participate, and since each one is looking after its own interests, we are seeing {problems with} the culture of the European Union and of Peace, which I hope we will continue. I hope that it does not go further, and that it does go for the better, and that these small problems can be solved. That we can face the problems that come in a way that, I don't know, in which everybody can participate, can have their point of view, but that it does not get worse. Because it is true that seeing all the problems and the current way of, right now, it does not seem that, in the future, it is going to continue, so to speak. That maybe they {meaning EU} can reach a rupture, at the end of it all, although I don't think so, and I hope not. But well, even so, you could say that... At the moment it's like on a seesaw. So, I think more or less.

(short pause)

M: Anyone else? How do you see the future of the European Union?

MA: Based on the topics we've talked about here, maybe even some that we haven't dwelled on as much. Can any of those be linked to the future of the EU?

ESFG3_M1: I mean, basically everything we have been talking about [laughs]. It is a little ridiculous to say it that way, but yes, we have been talking about what the European Union should do at all moments. What I am curious about is... I suppose that there will be... I mean, what we have talked about here, about the responsibilities and the actions that the European Union should take in the countries, they should be more visible than what is being done now. I believe that this is, to a certain extent, the future that awaits the European Union. What I do not know is if it is going to... if it is really going to be for the better. Because, in other words, I agree with some things, and that, to a certain extent, we must try to do what we have talked about, but I also believe that in certain... a certain benefit that the European Union has is this tension between the interests of the States themselves and the joint, the inter-State interests. So, if the state interests end up dissolving into a common interest, I think that will only generate an "inter-state" that will have the same problems that we are having here. But well, that's already maybe {a different story}...

ESFG3_F5: I do not agree. I think we have to look towards a United States of Europe [laughs].

ESFG3_F3: I think so too.

ESFG3_F5: It's true. Because, in addition, it seems to me that it is also to think that they work with... I mean, it is also to think about it from the inside, that there are many things to talk about, isn't it? But there is a relationship with other powers. So, the United States does not compete with Germany, the United States does not compete with Greece; the United States competes with the European Union.

ESFG3_M2: Sure, sure.

ESFG3_F5: Russia, too, {it competes} with the European Union. So,-

ESFG3_M2: -To say "compete with the European Union" is also saying a lot. I mean, I don't know if it will really compete with the European Union. And anyway,- (overlapping)

ESFG3_F5: -Man! "We're going to make America great again", and I ask to myself: “Again"? “So you've been great at some point”. And on top of that, great in front of who, Russia? No, because they get along great {maybe referring to Putin and US, or Trump}-

ESFG3_F3: -In front of China.

ESFG3_F5: Yes, that also.

ESFG3_M2: I mean, the thing is that the United States is not the same as Europe, I think. The United States was already born with certain... I mean, the values and the... Ugh, that's already getting involved in... but well- (overlapping).

[Several speak at the same time]

M: One moment, let’s try to focus a little bit on the question, how do you see the future of the European Union?

ESFG3_F3: Okay, I, for example, believe that one of the aspects that the European Union has to improve is to be more democratic. That it decision making, in the formulation of public policies, the citizenship should have a greater weight, that goes beyond the State level, and to have the citizenship together with the European institutions. I think it would be very interesting to have a European scope or guideline in everything related to policies. And I hope that in the future it will be that, more public participation, and also more integration. Because I think we are now at a moment, at a point, of deciding where we are going, and I think we should go towards more integration.

[01:20:28]

ESFG3_F1: I agree, I think that there has to be a greater education of the population as to what the European Union itself is and the competences it has. Because, I don't know, I, for example, am not very clear about the things it can do or the potential it has. So, to train the population in all this. And it would also be quite interesting to make us more involved in the project itself.

ESFG3_F6: I have a rather positive view. I think that, despite the fact that, well, I have the feeling that, in general terms, Spanish society sees the European Union as something rather obscure, like the typical people in ties making decisions for the people. On the other hand, I think that right now there is a quite positive debate going on. The fact that there is conflict between nations, the difficulty of making decisions, sometimes, is good, because new things are being put in place. So, I see a future in which I believe there will be stability. Obviously with conflicts, but in the long term I do not believe that the European Union will be dissolved, and I see this as positive.

ESFG3_F4: Well, I also think that we have to be attentive to movements such as Brexit, such as the rise of the ultra-right, and Marine Le Pen who was very close {to win the elections} in France. And I think Europe has to rethink how it's going to deal with future movements that are starting to succeed in the rest of Europe. That that can (slow down?) quite a bit the common project.

ESFG3_F5: Well, we also have to analyze who benefits from Britain leaving the Union. I mean, we rely too much on the self-determinism of nations. Things are decided behind closed doors, and things are run by international interests. So, no matter how much polling you do of the British population, and you come to the conclusion that people have that opinion and that's why they've left, that's the brainwashing that's been done to the people. Then, who benefits if a major power leaves the European Union? That would have to be looked at.

M: [addressing MA] Do you want to add any questions?

MA: Yes, I have a question in my mind. When we were talking about the hypothetical case of the financial crisis scenario, my question is: we were talking, in that respect, about what could be the actions of the EU and the actions of Spain, so I was thinking: Should Spain help Europe, in the case that this crisis is affecting more another country? Whichever it is, of the European Union, should Spain help?

ESFG3_M2: To Europe?

MA: Yes, to that other hypothetical European country. And in case the answer is yes, should we include conditions, restrictions?

ESFG3_F6: I think that... let's see, what do you mean by helping? In economic terms? In terms of providing, at least, expert officials to go there and discuss the issue?

MA: In costs, in costs.

ESFG3_M2: Sorry, another question, the restrictions would be set by the country or by Europe?

MA: There can be innumerable cases, in this particular case would be Spain who has the possibility to choose {the conditions}. Talking about any European country that is in crisis.

ESFG3_M2: And does Spain have the possibility to put conditions on that country?

ESFG3_F6: I think that's a hypothetical case-

MA: -All the cases were hypothetical.

ESFG3_F6: Yes, I mean, I understand what you are saying, but I lack more assumptions to understand what Spain's position is. I mean, okay, there is a crisis, but, I mean... if maybe... I don't know how to say it. If it would be in the early 2000s, when Spain was doing great, maybe we would be the ones lending money. But if you put me in 2008, when we were the ones affected, well, obviously we’re going to be the one who receives. I am missing more assumptions-

MA: -Okay, in this case, Spain has money.

ESFG3_F6: If Spain has money, if Spain is one of the countries that has the economic capacity to be able to lend money, I think that would be what it will do. Economically, because that is what is usually done in a union: whoever has more money is the one who lends. Because you are not going to go, if you are in the European Union, to ask for money from other countries. If you already have some central banks, some funds that have been created for the crisis, in the end it is the surplus country that puts more money in.

ESFG3_M2: And the conditions, in my opinion, should be the (minimum?)

[A noise is heard from the closing of a door]

MA: Did you say the "same" or the "minimum"?

ESFG3_M2: The minimum.

MA: That means, Spain should help even if there is an additional cost, and with minimum conditions?

ESFG3_M2: Yes, in the event that Spain finds itself in a hypothetical situation of economic bonanza, and so on.

ESFG3_F6: What if it is not? If it's not, you're going to be the country they lend you money.

ESFG3_F5: But imagine that it is 2008 now, the crisis of the real estate bubble, right? Imagine that at that moment Italy goes bankrupt like crazy, and this country has to be rescued quickly, and it is doing much worse than Spain. Imagine that. Spain would also have to {help}... wouldn't it? That is, Spain, being part of the European Union, would have to be taken into account among the countries that have to rescue Italy, which is much worse off.

ESFG3_F6: I do not know if it works exactly like that, but I think that how it is usually done. Of course, Spain was very bad in 2008, so in the end, if it is a strong position... I mean, you also have to see what kind of crisis it is. The crises are not all the same... The trigger of the financial crisis... Maybe you have a financial crisis, but this time of a cryptocurrency nature, for instance. In other words, they are different things one of the other. So, in the end ... And it also depends on the situation of the country. I mean, if it is France that now it is going through a bad patch, you have to see why the country has gone bankrupt. Or well, it is not that it has gone bankrupt, ( ). Then you have to analyze: "okay, what do I have, who am I, how much money is being lent? In terms of what, what money is needed?”. In other words, I am missing more data.

ESFG3_M2: In other words, the answer is regulated in terms of what those countries have and what you have to you give, little or a lot of money, you should reach a similar situation. Because, at the end of the day, either countries, {even} if one have little money, both should also lend the money.

M: Well, just because we are about to be kicked out of the classroom, just to wrap up: this is the end of the questionnaire. I just wanted to know if anyone had something on their mind during the conversation that they couldn't say and would like to bring it up here. Or a topic that we have not talked about and that you think we should have talked about.

MA: Or a final comment that closes the position you have on the EU.

(short pause)

ESFG3_F3: I have said all.

ESFG3_M2: I am fine.

ESFG3_F4: Me too.

ESFG3_F5: I, as a philosophy student, focus more on values. But why? Because I don't study what you study [referring to ESFG3_F6, who studies economics]. All the data that you provide, I cannot provide.

ESFG3_M2: Yes, yes.

ESFG3_F6: So, everyone talks about what they know.

(short pause)

M: ((Great. No further comments. Well, we'll turn off the recorders and that's all. Thank you very much for your participation)).