Who decides the "Future of Europe"?

Last week, a group of foreign ministers from 11 different European Union (EU) member states, called the "Future of Europe group", issued a report calling for closer integration between member states, with key points being reference to a European Army and the greater use of "super-majorities" in decision-making (decisions made only with the backing of representatives of a majority of member states and a majority of the EU's population). Whilst there are merits to some of the points agreed in the report, with super-majorities being much fairer and more representative, and the need for greater European clout in economic matters, given how the weak oversight of national budgets has completely undermined the Eurozone's unity and effectiveness, is also crucial if the Euro is to have a future. What is troubling is that a seemingly self-imposed elite group of member states have decided they will direct the EU's "future", rather than including ALL foreign ministers or at least just Eurozone members. There seems to be no logic to the choice of this 11, except perhaps that they mostly represent countries usually favouring further integration. Britain and Ireland are amongst the oldest EU member states (or EEC as it was then) yet have been excluded from contributing to this report. Greece has similarly been in the EU for a long time, and both Greece and Ireland are in the Eurozone, yet have been excluded. Countries such as Britain, Sweden, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Finland have far larger populations and contribute more economically to the EU than Luxembourg, yet the latter is the only one of this list of member states to have an input on Europe's future. If the EU is to get greater respect and legitimacy from all European states, it should extend the fairness that it preaches to what it does in practice.