It's four years ago this week since I went on my first outing to Europe as Britain's Foreign Secretary.

After a meeting which required my full concentration, it was time for a quick "stand-up" with Europe's media on how the new boy had fared. Simple- there were no crises, not much pressure, we'd just won an (historic) second term, etc. But it's a moment I like to forget.

"I'd like to say how delighted I was to have been made Britain's Foreign Secretary and how pleased I am attending my first meeting with European Foreign Ministers, here in Brussels."

I put a special flourish "Brussels", only to hear a special adviser and Press Secretary chorus in a loud stage whisper, "No, Luxembourg". All on camera too.

Delighted journalists facing a tedious day now had a nice little story about how the new Foreign Secretary couldn't even remember where he was, and I was kicking myself very hard.

Four years on, I now know the difference between Luxembourg and Brussels from inside the soulless EU buildings, as well as outside, but this embarrassing tale begs a bigger question - why are some EU meetings in Luxembourg and some in Brussels, and the bigger one still - why does the European Parliament have to meet, at vast expense and great inconvenience, in both Strasbourg and Brussels?

I guess if we'd been part of the original EU club, and we'd got the European Parliament in London, or agreement to hold all Ministerial meetings one month in three, we'd be reluctant to give this up, not least because of all the jobs and much more this would have brought.

But all the additional costs of the EU not having a single base just adds to the sense, across Europe, that the EU needs reform.

So I was back in Luxembourg (not Brussels!) this Sunday and Monday, to discuss the EU's budget to 2013; and I'll be in Brussels (not Luxembourg!) today and tomorrow with the PM for the EU summit.

There are some big issues at stake. These are highlighted by the UK "rebate", or the "cheque Britannique" as the French like to call it. This was negotiated in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher because when we joined the EU in 1973, the UK was being skinned by a very unfair financial system.

Even with the rebate, we've had to pay two-and-a-half times France and Italy's net payment. In the future, however, our payments will draw level and then fall a little below these other two countries (which have similar populations, and only slightly less prosperity), so the EU Commission has proposed to freeze our rebate and then to phase it out.

The key point here is that when Thatcher got the rebate, everyone in the EU accepted it was a symptom of a bigger problem - the imbalance in the way the EU spent our money - too much on agriculture, for a start.

However, in the 21 years since, these distortions in spending have not been tackled at their root.