That's news to me, especially since multiple EU sources have repeatedly denied this claim over the years. Could you provide a link to this roadmap of yours?
You can see this for yourself in the expansion of power and reach since formation in 1993, and in every treaty since Maastricht.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/macron-urges-gr... [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macro... [3] https://www.ft.com/content/18eb3400-989b-11e7-a652-cde3f882d...
I can't ever recall something like that happening. But every decade or so there's a new EU treaty that transfers more power to the EU, eventually you end up with something that looks like the EU as the country and the old nation states as the provinces, but it happens so slowly over time that nobody really stops and asks if that's what everyone wants.
Along with this, The Irish were forced to vote a second time. Whether the same happens in Britain remains to be seen.
A key one for me is that US president is elected by the people. The EU does not have that degree of democratic accountability. Some may think that a good thing.
But without reforming aspects such as this, or at least offering to, I think it natural that the EU will continue to face questions over its democracy legitimacy when stories perceived to be unpopular arise.
Was it too close to criticism of the EU, why is that even an issue for some people?
The President of the USA is elected by the members of the Electoral College. The voting population votes electors into that Electoral College.
The expectation is that the electors vote for who they said they would, but there have been "faithless electors".
As a result, they come up with theories about how things work with "undemocratic ways" and other such misunderstandings.
In short, the Parliament is voted directly, the formation of the Commission is done with a kind of proxy (national goverments are in the loop). There is a control loop between the Parliament and the Commission; the Parliament has to OK the new Commission and if the Commission goes haywire, the Parliament can pull the plug.
As for integration, now that Great Britain is finally removing itself from the EU, we can expect more tighter structures to emerge. One of these is the European army, which has been floating around on an idea level for a long time, only to be continuously torpedoed by Great Britain. With president Trump casting serious doubts over the future of NATO and the core premise of the entire defence alliance (the idea that everyone is in it together, i.e. attack against one is an attack against all), it is only logical that Europe formulates its own pan-European defence mechanisms.
For the EU, as one of the supernational geopolitical power players, it also makes sense to tighten the co-operation on other areas, too. One of these is security. Probably one of these will be economical, and so on.
I mean, it's not like a wink, wink, handshake and some random person gets installed just like that as the President of the European Commission.
The Parliament really has to approve the person, whoever it is and however the person is found.
Has the Parliament ever exercised their veto against a president?
The USA federal government has exceptionally well defined limits. The EU can legislate on whatever the hell it wants. Quite the difference there.
The EU is on a roadmap for complete integration along the model of the USA.
It's not unreasonable for people to stop and question whether this is what they want when they see that they have no power to oppose disagreeable, draconian laws like this one.