Personally, I would advocate the US Senate model, where every state, no matter how populated, has one vote. And there are no "veto-powers". This I think would result in less bullying of the smaller countries by France and Germany, but in turn, the smaller countries would not have much opportunity to be "difficult" as they know where their bread is buttered (i.e. the economies of the smaller countries Belgium, Lux. etc. are supported by the success of the large countries UK France Germany etc.).
You can already see potential drawbacks of this situation - look at the United Nations. One of the UN's lesser problems is that in the GA
, all countries have the same vote, whether they are huge or tiny.
Consequently, a handful of the very smallest countries with tiny budgets get suspiciously large amounts of assistance from less scrupulous countries who'd like to buy a sympathetic vote. IIRC, Libya is/was a surprisingly large aid donor to tiny Caribbean banana republics.
the economies of the smaller countries Belgium, Lux. etc. are supported by the success of the large countries UK France Germany etc.
Belgium, Luxembourg, &c are successful in their own right; they're not parasites. A lot of their industries involve cross-border trade, but that would still have been the case (to a lesser extent) without the EU, simply because their borders are much closer together.
A better example would be Kaliningrad - it's small, and very poor by European standards, but it has the potential to cause lots of problems for European trade & border controls, &c. as well as complicating relations with the grumpy old giant who lives next door. It's a black hole for charity and "structural aid".
Parma won the "race" against Helsinki to become the site of the European Food agency
Because Finns have no sense of taste, right?
However, I don't like the EU because I think they formed it only to challenge US power and we should be strong-handed with the EU
Then a little research might help.
The rest of the world is not always so adversarial.