The EU "may" become tyrannical in 80 years and therefore it's definitely, objectively, better for it not to exist. What kind of logic is that argument based on?
BTW Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1986 and are net monetary aid beneficiaries. So your argument about only receiving things initially is hilariously wrong.
Now, rather than using humiliation as part of your handbook, please do not just cherry-pick a counter-example. It’s always mockery that you people are using, not reasoning, not rationality, not taking interest in your enemy’s argument, not taking empathy to understand why would someone ever be doubtful/hateful about the EU, no, just otherise “it”, consider it as an enemy, to take down at all costs, put it on the other side of the fence on a stake, and laugh at him.
And then you take a high air when people get harassed into submission.
It's not cherry picking as there are several long time members who are net beneficiaries. Even if it was cherry picking, how is it irrational to pick counter examples? How does one make rational arguments then?
You don't like the EU because you don't like "open borders". You'll find any reason to hate the EU without reasoning because you don't like "open borders". Doesn't matter what good the EU has done. It can never outweigh "open borders". The EU "steals" from its members and redistributes. Taxes are theft. Nevermind that modern economies rely on public services and infrastructure funded by taxes.
BTW Spain and Portugal joined the EU in 1986 and are net monetary aid beneficiaries. So your argument about only receiving things initially is hilariously wrong.