Which is why the European Council exists, wherein every state gets one member. The problem with the Council is that its makeup is a reactionary one, not one that is set according to electoral cycles as in most Federal republics.
Which would happen -regardless- of the EU. The difference is that in the EU, there exists the possibility for recourse. If the peripheral countries leave it, they will become just as if not -more- exploited and unable to do anything about it.The people who benefit from a global market are the rich countries that can afford the EU taxes, regulations and bureaucracy. New members are usually failing to comply with all EU restrictions and their market becomes dominated by the richer countries.
Which happens regardless of things like CAP. Corporate farms have the benefit of economies of scale; the "traditional farmer" is currently a niche market that ultimately will not survive the modern age.The CAP is there to make sure EU vegetables are able to compete with non-EU vegetables pricewise. CAP is also extremely hard to get and locked behind bureaucracy and regulations. This is why large companies have been cashing in and killing off traditional farmer's livelihood.
It's happening more because the global market is solidifying, which would be happening with or without the EU. The large states suffer because of unrestricted immigration between their countries and the peripheral ones, which causes significant social problems; as well as being forced to bail out smaller states that make poor financial decisions.The difference is the Scale. It's been happening more than ever before, because people are fooled by their EU citizen status failing to see that they are second class.
The fact of the matter is this; Federal states often go through economic and social birthing pains as they struggle to find the right balance between local and federal power, and while that process can be troubling in the short term, in the long run it forges a stronger and more closely-knit state.