OK, so I was born, raised, christened Eurosceptic. I understand what it feels like to not like the EU. Added to the fact, the EU is a government. Nobody is supposed to like their government.
I hate my government, I wouldn’t vote to get rid of it and live in anarchy. I do at least appreciate it is doing a job.
And I probably would have voted out of the EU had I not spent several years looking into it. It’s a big subject, and even after a year of learning, I would have been just a reluctant Remainer.
However, I learnt to appreciate things, and even as a leaver, credit where credit is due, the EU’s record is very good. Although, to be clear, this comes from historic ties to the countries, rather than pure benevolence.
For example, the EEC was set up with France being the biggest country, and it had its own Commonwealth of ex-colonial states. States it was close to and wanted to keep relations with.
Consequently, in the same section of the Treaty of Rome as “Ever closer union”, was a statement of solidarity. 
The European Development Fund was also created in the Treaty to provide financial assistance to countries with historic ties, and countries that were still colonized. (Different times, huh!?)
The Yaoundé deal was done in 1963 (and 1967) pledged the lion's share of EDF financial support to French-speaking Africa to build infrastructure in the wake of decolonisation.
In the late sixties someone proposed a special reduced tariffs for the smaller countries. GATT (The forerunner to the WTO) met on this an agreed to give a waiver to developing countries. It was called Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)
The EEC was the first country to ever implement GSP in 1971, reducing tariffs to poorer countries.
In 1973 when the UK joined, they provided the sugar protocols to Commonwealth countries as part of the deal, and agreed to extend Yaoundé
It was negotiated by France and the UK, and the European Commission let us get on with it. The UK negotiator was Nicholas Soame’s father, Sir Christopher Soames.
Signed in 1975 the Lomé convention covered 57 countries, the largest trade deal with developing countries ever, and the first of its kind to be non-reciprocal. Countries could close their market to the EEC and protect themselves.
The Lomé convention also contained something to ensure countries were paid a stable price if the world price collapsed. Very handy to get that stability in the developing world, but totally illegal now under WTO rules.
In 1989 the EEC concluded free trade wasn’t working, so they applied new conditions. It was the first trade deal to include Human Rights provisions.
The EEC also worked out that dropping tariffs in the WTO and doing more trade deals was making the “special preference” less “special”. (Take note Jacob Rees-Mogg et al)
So the Maastricht treaty required that the EU take into account the impact on developing countries in creating its non-development co-operation policies. Things like trade deals. I don’t know any country that has ever done that.
Then in the 1990s the WTO talked about having a special preference scheme, and for the first time ever the US beat the EU to the punch with the African Growth and Opportunity Act in 2000.
However, then the EU introduced EBA, it covered more countries in more areas. It applied to more tariffs with deeper access, and the ROO rules were less restrictive.
As of 2008, the EU had GSP available to more countries than any other with the possible exception of Australia, covering more tariffs than any country bar none. They also had the best Least Developed Country scheme in the world.
Don’t get me wrong, the EU isn’t a benevolent organisation or a charity. It is 28 countries looking for mutual interest who will make decisions in their interest, like any government in the world.
But the whole interdependency model the EU is based on includes supporting stability and helping other nations out of poverty, because it makes economic sense that customers and partners are prosperous and not at war.
So there is an economic case, and there are historic political reasons. You don’t have to believe there is any benevolence there, but I believe there is, and that can be seen in things like ECHO.
The fact is, it doesn’t matter why they’ve done it. We can stand on that record. In the EU we’ve led the world in the way we’ve traded with developing countries, and the UK has been a major influence and we should be proud.
And you can despise something and still give it credit for their actual accomplishments.
Sorry for the number of replies btw, but as an ex-Eurosceptic I personally would have liked someone to explain this so I could understand what anyone saw positive in the EU, because I wouldn't have known 😀
(Oh and I'm not saying they are always right. Like all governments, they make mistakes, Sometimes bad ones)
