Future of Europe

Despite a heavy toll in some sectors, Hungary has managed to reap the benefits of membership to the EU via the Structural Funds and access to the single market. The freedom of movement has also become a treasured right among Hungarians, for leisure and for jobs – about 500,000 have gained employment in other European countries.

One of Bulgaria’s paradoxes is that 25 years after the collapse of communism and almost ten years of EU membership, it seems to be quite unhappy with the transition but rather happy with its EU membership. In this way, the EU continues to be a beacon outside rather than the reality inside the country.

The Portuguese population remains supportive of the EU, but without a clear motive, and with a feeling that the country is run by external actors with external interests. Meanwhile, the authorities have strived to appear as “a good student” rigorously implementing austerity measures.

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.

Finland joined the European Union with three main goals in mind: protection against military threats (Finland remains outside NATO), gaining influence within and through the EU, and economic opportunities via a full-fledged participation in the Single Market.

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.

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.

The Danes are generally happy with the EU’s level of economic integration and are proponents of furthering the integration of the single market. However, they are sceptical when it comes to the EU’s federal trimmings and EU process standards in social and employment policies.

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.

Italy has gone from one of the most pro-EU country to a rather euro-critical one. The crisis has dimmed hopes that the EU membership was a stimulator for economic growth. Moreover, Italians believed that the EU would be able to correct the shortcomings of national institutions. Phenomena, such as corruption, however, remain acutely perceived in Italy.

If Lithuania did not enter the EU with specific objectives in mind, it has clearly benefited from its membership. Membership has allowed the country to catch up economically, to join the Single Market and expand business opportunities. Its adoption of the euro in the midst of the Eurozone crisis is another evidence of Lithuanian keenness to participate actively to the EU.

The expectations of Croat citizens are modest since the country entered the EU in the midst of the financial crisis and the popular feeling is one of cautious optimism. The membership serves as a catalyst for the creation of national identity as one rooted in the West. It should also boost growth in the country, which Croatia is only starting to see having entered the EU in the midst of the crisis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The times when the German population met the EU with almost unconditional and passive support might be over, but it is still convinced that any step backwards would entrain even bigger damages for Germany’s stability, peace and wealth.

A key element to understand the Luxembourgish perspective on the EU relates to its geography. Contacts with citizens from neighbouring countries are daily and affect the kind of society that Luxembourg has become, quite multinational. Similarly, the presence of many international companies leads Luxembourg to favour open markets for labour, services, goods and capital.