> Some member countries got to vote in the last and one before MEP elections for candidates that did not represent the ruling group that runs the EU.

That's equally applicable at the national level too

>THAT is exactly how MEP voting choice was in some EU member countries that didn't have any EPP representation, say or choice and not a single EPP MEP voted for and yet it is the EPP that runs the EU.

The President of the European Commission may be an EPP member, but the college as a whole is pretty representative of the party make-up of the Parliament as a whole:

Party-Group / Commission / Parliament

EPP-EPP / 37% / 24%

PES-S&D / 33% / 21%

ALDE-RE / 19% / 14%

Ind-NI / 7% / 14%

ECR-ECR / 4% / 8%

>Yes the EU isn't perfect but when they can't even sort out their own accounts and get them signed off year upon year, that's not a good sign of leadership or credibility.

That's not true, you are repeating disinformation.

EU accounts have been signed off with a clean opinion every year since 2007.

> Heck even they admit they need to reform

So? Integrating an entire continent - and doing it right - takes time and needs to be done in an incremental fashion.

> which is sad as they didn't admit that until after the whole UK interdependence vote

Again, that is not true. Nobody thought that as soon as the Lisbon Treaty came in to force that the job was done.

>and that vote only came about as the UK leadership went to the EU for reforms and got palmed off with some tokens.

Once more - that is simply not true.

The UK didn't go to the EU with reforms, the UK went to the EU with a set of demands for special treatment. Demands that, in part, would undermine the single market.

> Ironically had the EU even bothered to do any attempt at reform before the UK left, the UK could of tabled another vote as things would of changed

Can you guess what I'm about to say? Yup, that is not true.

The people championing brexit (and by that I mean the politicians and notorious business people like Dyson and Martin) didn't give a shit about "reform". They wanted out and they were damned well going to get out by hook or by crook.

Do you really think the likes of the ERG would ever have countenanced a second vote?

>Remember that the EU was a trade agreement that people voted to join

ARRRGH. No. No it wasn't.

The EU has always, always, been a political project to integrate Europe.

Don't believe me? Let me quote a landmark case from the Court of Justice from 1963:

"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the Community."

Does that sound like it's talking about a mere trade agreement?

And bare in mind that the UK, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Cypress, Malta, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Croatia all applied to join, and then did join, after that judgment was given.

That's 21 of the current 27 member states, plus the UK.

> what it became is something the people had no direct say in at all

Every member state has to agree to treaty changes. People could have voted for governments that would say no to those changes. Many member states usually have referendums - the proposed constitution was vetoed by referendums. Ireland extracted concessions by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty the first time around.