Francisco,

>Why "ridiculously"? Shouldn't get bigger?

I think it absolutely should get bigger if new countries can bring
something to the union and are ready for membership. In the longer-term, I
don't think the EU should necessarily be restricted to Europe either.

This said, whatever your vision on what the EU should be (a 'united states'
of Europe, or a looser cooperative), it's very clear that it cannot expand
further without radical changes in the way that it's organised. For
example, the three-way decision making (Council of Ministers, Parliament
and Commission) is ridiculously cumbersome, the European Commission is
almost totally unaccountable to anyone, and we even have to put-up with the
pretence and expense of three official working languages, despite the
reality that everyone uses English.

In many respects I would welcome a federal structure and established
constitution because it would clearly demarcate the responsibilities of EU
and those of the member states. At the moment, this is determined by a
myriad of treaties and legislation which no-one really understands.
However, recent events have shown there is no absolutely no common ground
within the EU in certain areas such as foreign policy and defence, and I
can't see these aspects ever being derogated to the EU in the way they were
by the US states to a federal government.

>but in the European Union it is shifting among the centers of Paris,
>Berlin and Brussels. Sometimes is also pulled by London

The fundamental problem with the EU is the old adage, 'two's company,
three's a crowd'. The EU would probably work without too many problems if
any one country from either France, Germany and the UK were not involved ;-)

Regards,

Kevin Meynell

PS. The usual apologies for the lack of punctilious content, but there
seems to be little around at the moment.