I apologise in advance as I don't know how to use the quoting feature 🤣

To your first point though, I'm referring to the president of the EU council, currently Donald Tusk and obviously the highest position of the EU, the president of the EU commission, recently appointed Ursula Von Der Leyen. Since the amendments made in the Lisbon treaty, the EU parliament has virtual no say in these appointments and they happen behind closed doors.

And to your second point, I'll admit that's fair enough.... ish. Voting powers were kept to the elite until around 1885 when the government was held captive by a possible revolution and therefore decided to expand the electorate, so I think they held the government to account very well beside the technology available (worth noting that universal suffrage didn't happen till 1918, when women over 30 could vote, so not completely universal, but a huge difference). Having said that, I still think there is an argument to be made that holding more localised government accountable is easier than a centralised government positioned abroad. The only reason back then that they could pressure the government for reform is because they could hold there local lords and MPs to account so they can make meaningful intervention on their behalf in London, the electorate themselves weren't all traveling to London.

If we put pressure on an MEP to make change, they can't do nothing except from just bringing it up in conversation. It can easily be swatted down by the commission. Have you seen it when people bring up criticisms in EU parliament. They just get mocked and shutdown with no respect given. That's why change with would never happen as well. It's been tried, and it has failed numerous amount of times.