You might find those questions easy, and think that there is a gold standard for what is European and that one country can claim to be the most European one.
20 years ago, it was common that people in Sweden didn't consider themselves "European". In all practical aspects, the Scandinavian peninsula is an island. For us Europe was the mainland. Of course that was just an attitude and point of view that didn't correspond to reality, just as similar British sentiments don't. There are one or two Brits that considers that they are not European. Is Armenia European? I would say so. It isn't within the geographical Europe, but for whatever intents and purposes, the geographical border of Europe in the east is made up. Politically it is considered European and a member of the Council of Europe.
Do you have to be Christian? White? How much white? Do you have to have been influenced by the French revolution? Can a country become more European or move away from being European? Are the personal feelings of people towards if a country is to be considered European or not relevant? If you feel that the Ukraine is not European, would that make it Asian?
I read about a survey where people were asked about what European values were to them. Most people seem to have answered democracy, justice and human rights.
Well. What part of Europe is this Union for? What is the vision and the European idea? We can't build a Union because it is easy.
There will always be stronger and weaker regions. I am sure there are regions in the UK that is not a net provider to the British Union. The sentiments of Flanders seem to be that they are paying for the Walloon. The rich south in Sweden subsidizes the north. The difference in why that is a problem sometimes and not others is if we identify with each other and feel solidarity or not.
Europe after the WWII was not a pretty sight, and were it not for american investment things would have looked quite different, though it came with the price of West Europe becoming a part of American security policy still present. That parts of Europe need more investment than others is not a static condition. Poland from the country it was 20 years ago and now is very different, and it will keep changing. Some of these countries will most likely become net providers themselves to the Union.
Then maybe the message to take from that is that the EU has not only reached its limits, but with the last two groups of accession actually far exceeded it.
Let’s never forget that the European Union is supposed to be just that. A union of states with a deal of commonality between them who want to progress as a single entity, NOT an empire in the making, and NOT a place where basket case countries can get hand outs and predate off the rest of us.
Yet you want to exclude Scandinavia from the EU for some reason. The Union would not have existed were it based on popular vote. It was created by the same countries that killed each other in droves just a couple of years earlier. No, it hasn't exceeded it's limits. But it has been rushed.
We need to continue building this Union. The world around us changes whether we want it or not, and we need to change with it. Dissolving the Union is not an option, we have to move forward to finalization, which is not here and now.