All three points are false. The first one is about a pissing contest, when raising inequality and the debasing of public infrastructure and the social safety net is a much more pressing concern.
The second point is bullshit: individual countries pressy much have veto power or can easily put together blocking minorities. The member states have too much power and the European Parliament too little.
The EU just doubled in size in 3 years and is not only in political gridlock but in the middle of an internal economic rearrangement only comparable with the German reunification. It will take 5 to 7 years for all the special rules applying to the nex member states to lapse. Don't expect any new members before 2019.
Your mistake was to listen to a BBC debate, British pundits just don't 'get it'. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
The Irishman talked about growth and the Spaniard about strengthening the power of the central government as a way to sidestep the negative vote on the constitution.
No one seemed to want to talk about the positive results of the EU. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Regarding what the Spaniard said, the EU is already too democratic for the politicians. You may have noticed that the best way they can imagine out of the constitution fiasco is to have the next treaty ratified by the national parliaments. Referencums are too unpredictable.
So, the democratic deficit is a real problem. "It's the statue, man, The Statue."
