Would the countries that are part of the EU be worse off or better off if the Union had never existed?

Mostly worse off:

• From a security perspective, I think  all of them would be worse off without the EU as a union that has some heft when dealing with local players like Russia. The EU simply has more voice than, say, Lithuania alone. The fact that many EU countries are part of NATO is a big factor in this of course.

• From a economic perspective, most of them would be worse off without the Union--there is no doubt in my  that Free Trade has boosted business in every part of the EU. Of course manufacturing based economies that are net exporters to the EU benefit the most from this arrangement(Germany, and others.) The exceptions to this would be countries with very high unemployment rates which can be directly attributed to the Euro-crisis, austerity and the lack of a flexible fiscal policy. Countries like Greece, maybe Spain. They would actually better off if they hadn't ever joined the EURO--but worse off if they had stayed outside the EU itself. Here the EU is not the problem; the Euro is.

• From a position of national sovereignty and national self-determination, all countries would be better off without the EU(or with an EU that was structured differently.) Others might say that the economic and security advantages would balance this out, as well as balancing out the 'Democratic Deficit,' which has been a matter of concern for over a decade. I would tend to agree. But then when I see the rise of angry extremist right- and left-wing nationalist groups in various countries I feel uneasy. Nationalism, when backed against a wall tends to fight back. Like most ideas.

---

So, in a nutshell: all EU countries are better off with the EU;  but some countries would be better off without the Euro, at least for now; and the ambiguity of national sovereignty inherent in the structure and political culture of the EU is causing some ugly elements to rise to the surface

Written Feb 15