All Easter European countries massively profited from joining the EU.
Romanias GDP jumped from 122 billion to 214 billion from 2006 to 2008 after joining in 2007.
Poland had a similar jump.
In addition eastern countries receive immense financial subsidies.
Ireland and Luxemburg more or less monetise the fact that they can give companies access to the European market.
For larger countries ( Italy, Germany, France) the benefits are less visible, but being able to negotiate with large markets on eye level is of immense value to exporting economies.
In addition, if you read the Schuman address you might realise that the EU project never was about economics, it was and is about lasting peace. The only founding nation of the union that saw it as purely economic union was the UK.
Finally, anticipating the matter of immigration:
Countries like Hungary, Greece and Italy that keep complaining about EU immigration policies, fail to acknowledge that in the absence of the EU they would be left alone with the arriving immigrants from Africa, while the rest of Europe would close its borders.
The problem with this approach is that you're talking about the past. Yes, Poland and others did profit from joining the EU, initially, but once EU realized that they changed the rules of the game. EU is not about economic prosperity anymore, it is all about "climate change", immigration and similar bullshit. Lisbon Treaty in particular redefined how EU works. The best thing to do right now is to leave the EU before it collapses.
Somebody has to pay for the subsidies. If poorer countries get them, richer mebmer countries will have to pay for them. Richer countries, like Iceland, will never get subsidies.
What about the inner borders? Often times "illegal" (not authorized being in the country) aliens come from the inner borders, which can not be effectively controlled as per Schengen.
During the 2015 migrant crisis, did not refugees end up traveling to Germany while first entering Greece and Italy? If Dublin regulation really applied, Germany would not need to take the responsibility of the majority of the asylum seekers. At the same time, that only concerns for the asylum seekers and not the unregistered aliens.
If European NGOs are free to pick up (mostly) economic illegal migrants a few miles off Libia and drop them in Italy, the former interior minister is prosecuted for blocking them (finally absolved), you see it's not a lack of will
The important border for immigrants is the coastline, not the land borders with other EU countries. We can’t close them and forcefully repatriate like Australia does due to “humanitarian” reasons and NGOs.
While the benefits of the EU for countries that are somewhat economically weak (and I include Czechia to the list) are obvious, Iceland is a different story. Iceland would be joining a union that is, on average, both less rich and less economically dynamic than Iceland. This could be economically disadvantageous for them; and being very far from the EU core, there aren't that many network effects to benefit from.
> I preferred the culture and diversity that came from each country having its own national identity.
We still have or national identity. I live in Hamburg/Germany. Our identity is largely European since hundreds of years (see for example our history in the Hanse), before the German nation existed. We have a strong Regional and European identity.
> Why would we celebrate the EU's efforts to homogenise our national cultures?
The EU doesn't do that. In many ways it actually preserves local (and also regional) cultures. It sets a framework for democracy and law in Europe.
> I preferred the EU when it was a trading union as opposed to a utopian political experiment.
A trading union doesn't influence culture and politics?
The EU was never thought as just a trading union. It was set up as a process to get a peaceful Union for the European Countries after hundreds of years of wars. After the WWII which made clear that lasting peace can be achieved by deep cooperation.
Look at the thousands of years of Europe. People were moving in Europe, to Europe and from Europe. If they did not had the freedom to do so, it was often done by force. Wars, slave trade, migrations, ... that has been in our history for thousands of years.
Now EU citizens can do it peacefully.
Freedom of movement in the EU also does not mean "people can move freely in Europe". It's a right for EU citizens. Not for all people. It's also for people who can actually afford to live at a new place.
Preserving a cultural heritage does not mean regions are suddenly cultural museums. Cultural regions also are not by single nations, they span across several nations or nations have several cultural regions.
For example in Germany there wasn't a 'Nation' for much of the history. Much of the culture came out of changing regions. Visit Munich, Aachen, Lübeck, Danzig (not even a part of Germany today) and look at their history. Different. Look at their cultural history: different. They are now living in a FEDERAL republic of states (Danzig is even in Poland, now). A Bundesrepublik of Bundesländer. This FEDERAL republic is also a member of the EU. People from German regions can move freely in the German states. They also can move freely in the EU.
Cultures in Europe developed and mixed since the beginning of human settlement on this continent. Now it still happens, peacefully.
I live in Northern Germany. There was an intense cultural exchange for hundreds of years, spanning several regions. Do you think that this is suddenly not a part of my cultural heritage?
Don't you think that modern transportation, modern communication, change things? Don't you think we need to find answers to changes? That we cope with changes? This platform here is international in English, from the US, spreading innovations and discussions about it. Don't you think that this has effects? Deep cultural effects??? Freedom of Movement in the EU is one of the answers to these changes we see.
I linked a grandiose political project to bring Europe under a single government with a grandiose political project to bring Europe under a single government.
Romanias GDP jumped from 122 billion to 214 billion from 2006 to 2008 after joining in 2007.
Poland had a similar jump.
In addition eastern countries receive immense financial subsidies.
Ireland and Luxemburg more or less monetise the fact that they can give companies access to the European market.
For larger countries ( Italy, Germany, France) the benefits are less visible, but being able to negotiate with large markets on eye level is of immense value to exporting economies.
In addition, if you read the Schuman address you might realise that the EU project never was about economics, it was and is about lasting peace. The only founding nation of the union that saw it as purely economic union was the UK.
Finally, anticipating the matter of immigration: Countries like Hungary, Greece and Italy that keep complaining about EU immigration policies, fail to acknowledge that in the absence of the EU they would be left alone with the arriving immigrants from Africa, while the rest of Europe would close its borders.