> but it is never specified _what_ exactly should be reformed

It's pretty clear that the EU, more specifically the Euro Zone, as currently run, can't go on. We either need a Federal government (i.e. fiscal + monetary union), or to disintegrate the Euro. Simply said, it's unthinkable that the US government would install capital controls in Alabama, whereas the EU government can do that in Greece.

That's the main issue; there are many smaller ones as well, but they exist in almost any political system and aren't specific to the EU.

Someone was saying this sort of thing recently. "Way less of the EU budget is spent on admin than people think"

I think the true number was ~8.5bn from 140bn budget (but I'm going on memory, I assume it was euros). I'm not sure that is a low budget? France and Germany are actually running a country. Infrastructure, social security, armed forces, police etc etc. This is a layer of government over and above that, redistributing and legislating for (in theory) the benefit of all.

I honestly don't see it as a small budget, and whilst the admin costs may be 5% instead of 20% (which I seem to have as the median expected number in the survey) - it's still billions.

It's all a question of perspective.

What i think is more important, is that the map of EU expansion will change. I will not be surprised if Russia becomes a candidate member.