So far it mostly works, no?

I really do not want the EU to become a unionized state that engages in imperialism.

My main problem with the EU is the lack of transparency and democracy.

Not really. It works in some cases but globally you have laws that are not applied in countries because it is how it works.

I am not an economist and would love to see hard numbers about how the EU in its current constitution is better than having the core members alone.

I am in France and see that we are a net payer which does not make me happy. Not because we pay, but rather because how countries that receive this money use it.

I would change lots of things if I could. But my point was that I don't think the problem of the EU is that it does not have too much centralized power.

Still, it mostly works. We have peace within the EU. We can go anywhere and start a new life just like that, that is pretty amazing.

Especially if you consider how it was before.

But look at how the slightest controversial point is vetoed. Sometimes by the Poland/Hungary team, sometimes by France, sometimes by Germany, or Spain, or anybody else.

Normally functioning democracies work on majorities. Do you think that your country would work is every citizen would need to agree to some law? It would be the end (like it was, BTW, in Poland at the end of the 18 century because of exactly this way of functioning of their parliament).

The other thing is that the money France pays (a net debit, like Germany) goes to countries that are openly anti-EU and prefer to buy South Korean weapons and not EU ones. There is no common direction the EU points to.

I like how switzerland works. If there is no broad support for a new law, then it does not happen. So not everyone has to agree, but yes there must be a broad consensus. I think this can also work on the european level, but of course not, if every small detail has to decided on the top level. Only the questions of europe wide concern should be debated there. There need to be some standards, but not universal standards for everything. I mean, we cannot even decide for Strassbourg or Bruessel for parliamanet..

I understand that this is not ideal for smaller countries (or the ones that do not participate enough) but it is difficult to admit that whole countries are taken hostage by others, independently of their participation.

This veto-based system simply does not work at scale

Imho that is a feature: the EU's power depends directly on how much its members' noses are in the same direction.

Where this breaks down is exactly when it's "majority decides, decision is forced top-down onto member states, even those who didn't agree".

EU-wide cooperation (with willing members) is good. Some kind of 'EU superstate' is not.

The EU is a construction that in average is expected to be profitable to everyone. If you have someone who can veto this just because they can it will not move forward. I am actually surprised that Brexit did not end with side agreements between UK and individual EU countries as it is usually the case.