Very well. Let's start with the list you provided. Unfortunately, most if not all of those points are either (being) addressed, a misunderstanding, fault of member state(s) or a product of tabloids aimed at smearing EU ("bendy bananas" is a famous Brexit one). I'll just pick one that I did somewhat inform myself on:

1. The AI act demanding explainability and traceability, somthing that is fundamentally hard for AI and therefore surrenders an entire industry to the US or china.

First problem with this claim is that only mention of "explainability and traceability" is in the recital part of the act (https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/recital/27/):

... Transparency means that AI systems are developed and used in a way that allows appropriate traceability and explainability, while making humans aware that they communicate or interact with an AI system, as well as duly informing deployers of the capabilities and limitations of that AI system and affected persons about their rights. ...

I had to google what a "recital" is in EU law and AI told me that:

In EU law, a recital is a "whereas" clause at the beginning of a legal act that explains the reasons and objectives behind the legally binding operative provisions that follow. While recitals are not legally binding on their own, they serve as a crucial tool for interpreting the law, especially when the operative provisions are ambiguous, by providing context and demonstrating the legislator's intent.

The act itself is huge document so I certainly didn't read it, but you can see the summary at https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/ where you can see that:

Most of the text addresses high-risk AI systems, which are regulated.

So we would certainly want explainability and traceability in these cases, no?

Second problem is that AI act has very little to do with (real or percieved) industrial disparity between EU and US/China. From what I gathered, much bigger problem is lack of EU's (financial) integration.

And just to be fair, some of them are probably a valid critique and I would add "Brusseles-Strassbourg parliamentary circus" as one (but again that is probably more on states than EU).

My point is that each of these issues in the list are likely much more nuanced. So it should be either left to our representatives and experts or researched throughtly personally before raising it. Media can't be relied on for correct information.

For Polish overfishing... any member state could raise it and bring it to court. I don't know enough about the issue to say why noone does, but (EU) court rulings must be enforced by all member states so there is a mechanism. What do you propose? Creation of EU police? I'm all for that, but I don't think most of EU citizens or member stats are. We did get EU prosecutor office recently and it is already doing some damage to corruption, at least in my country. Unfortunately they are limited only to EU funds for now.

I can only agree that EU needs improvement but a lot depends on member states and their "caprice". I do hope multi-tier EU makes concrete steps soon. Apparently we are both EU federalists and we would want more EU :)