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.

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.

Belgium has historically been a pro-European country. It depends on trade and foreign investment. As a small country, it benefits from being part of an institutional framework that balances the power of bigger Member States. The lack of a strong sense of national identity also helps to explain why there has been less reluctance to transfer competences to the EU.

Slovenians believe that they mostly benefit in terms of mobility (no/less border controls), cheaper mobile calls and improved consumer rights. In opposition to these concrete EU-membership related benefits, however, the generally positive assessment of the EU dropped immensely following the European economic and financial crisis.

The Czech Republic has moved from being a pro-EU country focused on benefits it can reap, such as the freedom of movement, to a more sceptic country in recent years. The critiques against the EU date back to the accession and do not focus on the integration process, but rather on the conditions of membership - especially those discussed during the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty and after on the euro adoption.

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.