Malta as an isolated country saw relations with the EU as a bridge building effort with the peoples of the European Continent, which would also secure supplies, open markets, help obtain energy and strengthen security.

Greece has a record as a pro-integration country. Yet, the sovereign debt crisis and the adjustment programmes have sapped the Eurozone’s and the EU’s image, especially regarding its capacity to provide a framework for economic prosperity. Still, the refugee crisis proves that EU membership continues to offer a credible support system within which it can expect economic aid, organisational backing and the protection of its borders.

Despite almost ten years within the European Union, Romania’s accession is not yet complete. It is not part of the Schengen zone and has yet to enter the Eurozone (planned for 2019). Moreover, a core problem remains in the ownership of the necessary reforms to catch up with the rest of the EU and to reform the public authorities.

Latvia’s benefits to the EU have been clear. It has boosted the modernisation of the country and its infrastructures via the Cohesion Funds. It has helped reconnect the country with the West. And it has served to provide security to Latvia, especially vis-à-vis Russia.

Both politically and economically, Cyprus retains mixed feelings toward the benefits of its EU membership. The country remains divided in two parts despite the “European solution”, which should have solved the situation. The economic crisis has also left a bitter taste in the mouths of Cypriots, especially considering the events that led to the bail-in programme. Overall, the experience has disillusioned the population.

Slovakia might be perceived as a “latecomer” in preparing for EU accession only in the 1990s, but it caught up rapidly. Among its chief objectives was for Slovakians to achieve higher living standards and gain an external system of checks and balances, which would improve the country’s democratic processes and public administration.

Joining the EU and NATO was perceived as a way to escape communism and Russia’s sphere of influence by quickly enhancing its national security and economic development. This view largely remains valid today, especially as the “economic catch up” it sought has been relatively fruitful.

The Swedish decision to enter the EU was not based so much on the hope of gaining something, but rather on the fear of being left out if it did not. It was probably the desire for a ‘negative safety’ that made the Swedes vote in favour of the EU as the alternative cost would probably have been too high.

Due to geopolitical constellations, Austria could be seen as “a rather late” comer to the European Union (it joined in 1995). The rationale to join remains relevant: protection of wealth and securing a prosperous future. Being very reliant on export, the access to the single market is fundamental to its economy. The enlargement has also helped Austria become a hub between Western and Eastern Europe.

For Britain, the perceptions of its membership of the EU is seen in transactional terms. Joining and remaining in the EU was always sold as an economic decision taken for economic reasons. Therefore, concepts like “political union” mean very little in the UK. Even the idea of the EU being a “project” has little echo.