All excellent questions...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13390432

Background article on Denmark, France, Italy and probable Schengen revisions.

There are even more questions:

How should the EU in your opinion be organized? Should decisions be taken behind the doors between the member states or in public elections and discussions by a stronger European Parliament? What's more important: further enlargement or further integration? What do you expect for the future of the Eurozone?

So many questions! But where are the answers? Are they just blowing in the wind or does anybody have an opinion?

 The EU has a rigid fiscal and monetary policies e..g. The common currency (Euro) that prevents countries from taking fiscal and monetary measures to aid their financial recovery (as Argentina did in the early 2000s) and will lead to further impoverishment of those who are innocent and rewarding those guilty of the financial crisis in Greece for example.  An end to the Euro and the EU might be a good thing for millions in Europe whose concern is their daily bread and not "being heard in the world".

By MARK WESBROT http://counterpunch.org/weisbrot05112011.html 

"The experience of Argentina at the end of 2001 is instructive. For more than three and a half years Argentina had suffered through one of the deepest recessions of the 20th century. Its peso was pegged to the dollar, which is similar to Greece having the euro as its national currency. The Argentines took loans from the International Monetary Fund, and cut spending as poverty and unemployment soared. It was all in vain as the recession deepened.

Then Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt and cut loose from the dollar. Most economists and the business press predicted that years of disaster would ensue. But the economy shrank for just one more quarter after the devaluation and default; it then grew 63 percent over the next six years. More than 11 million people, in a nation of 39 million, were pulled out of poverty.

Within three years Argentina was back to its pre-recession level of output, despite losing more than twice as much of its gross domestic product as Greece has lost in its current recession. By contrast, in Greece, even if things go well, the IMF projects that the economy will take eight years to reach its pre-crisis GDP. But this is likely optimistic — the IMF has repeatedly lowered its near-term growth projections for Greece since the crisis began.

The main reason for Argentina's rapid recovery was that it was finally freed from adhering to fiscal and monetary policies that stifled growth. The same would be true for Greece if it were to drop the euro. Greece would also get a boost from the devaluation's effect on the trade balance (as Argentina did for the first six months of recovery), since its exports would be more competitive, and imports would be more expensive.

I am also not sure what would be the best answer for the Greek situation, but if they go back to their own currency it could cause even biiger problems for them and other European countries. Saying that it helped Argentina to devaluate its currency ten years ago does not necessarily mean that it will also help the Greek economy, because the problems are maybe similar in parts but not identical.

Nevertheless it sounded quite frivolous to me that you concluded to abolish the whole Eurozone and even the EU. What would be the alternative? Go back to the nation states of the 19 th century. Borders and protectionism everywhere? In my opinion this would lead to the total irrelevance of Europe and economically the poorer countries would suffer the most from this decision, because they benefit the most from the EU-wide structural policy and the economic convergence of the Common market. Moreover it could unstable the democracic systems of many countries more than we can expect at the moment. 

The EU-history was a story of endless crisis, but at the same time it was a big success story and it was the first time in history that such a big unification took place without any wars or violence. (Maybe it is only a bit comparable with the emergence of the United States.) And that's the reason why it is a modell for the integration of other regional blocks in Afrika, Asia and South America. And that's how the World could be ruled in an at least fairly democratic way in future, because these regional blocks could meet in small rounds and find much better solution for whole the World than the chaotic UN does it today!