Note: This article is the second part of an interview by Philip Chivily on the European Union. He interviewed two residents of the European Union, Chiara Bondi and Gabriele Fett, both attending Hamilton College.

Do you have any criticism of the European Union?

Chiara Bondi: Oh, yeah. From a cultural point of view, the EU is excellent. Politically, I think the EU has created a sense of dependency for most of its members, because now it is hard for them to assert their autonomy or leave.

To give you an example, Spain entered into a conflict with Morocco in 2002 because a group of Moroccan soldiers took over the small Perejil Island between Spain and Morocco. The island is extremely tiny, about the size of Hamilton College. The fact that Spain felt the need to contact all the other countries in the EU to fight Morocco for an island the size of a peanut says a lot about what a country feels like it can do. Spain didn’t want Morocco to control it because they didn’t want Morocco to get any closer. The idea that it had to call upon the EU for support and aid to kick Morocco out of this island says a lot. The EU should be a last resort after trying every other option.

Another example is: In the 2010s, France suffered many terrorist attacks. The culprits were people who immigrated there from non-Schengen countries and had lived in France for a long time. Immigration policy should be 95 percent France’s decision, and the EU should not really step in. Immigration policy in Spain is Spain’s decision, and immigration policy in Italy is Italy’s decision.

A situation like a radical minority of immigrants launching terrorist attacks on French soil is a local issue, and I don’t see the point of bringing in the EU. To rely on the EU to solve terrorism problems related to immigration would be like the U.S. calling on NATO to solve its mass shooting crisis. I think the EU is just really outdated in that sense.

Gabriele Fett: I’m overall pro-EU like most Europeans are, but with some criticisms. The reason there are many anti-EU movements now is the perception that many of its bureaucrats are disconnected from reality, distant from most people, making a lot of money compared with the average citizen. That they are making rules no one understands, with no logic behind them, and that when people criticize them the critics are called populists and racists. Not to say there are not racists and populists.

We have definitely seen things such as skinheads in Northern Europe and Poland, and many people in these places being very anti-immigrant. But there is a distinct difference between someone who admires Hitler, or says “get the brown people out of Europe,” and a concerned Italian citizen saying “I’m not sure if we can afford bringing this many people here. Do we have the resources, and do they have the skills?” It seems that EU bureaucrats treat those two groups of people the same, which is very dangerous. It’s like the difference between a racist person voting for Trump and a person who is not racist at all voting for him for economic reasons – and you are lumping them together in the same category, which could not be further from the truth. It’s a dangerous precedent. I guess the criticism is that the bureaucrats can’t take criticism.