Yes, what he says can be seen to have a good deal of credence, but on the other hand, what agenda does he have as a politician? No less a one than the EU president. The EU as a trade bloc has worked at times, and has spectacularly failed at others. EU money has helped poorer regions to try and improve their situation by redistributing the wealth of the richer regions to a degree, one might add not for purely altruistic reasons, as more developed regions give a market for the richer regions' goods etc. EU rules and regulations have not always worked, and there is a growing sense that they can impose certain regulations at will almost it seems which later can have a profound impact on EU zone citizens. Some UK politicians have stated that almost 70% of our laws and regulations now originate in Europe.
So I can see his point about the idea that unelected 'representatives' are having a disproportionate impact on our lives an EU citizens. It has also long been argued that the bigger member states have a lot more say in decisions. But who is he kidding if he thinks that adding a gloss of democracy to how certain EU jobs are appointed will make a real difference? UK 'democracy' has not exactly covered itself in glory recently. We are, as he well knows, part of a global power and trade matrix which at times has far more impact on our 'democratic' lives. Unelected chief executives, media moguls and so on impact upon our lives each and every day, and often with the compliance of our democratic representatives, so to harangue Mr EU may be an easy and popular target, but in actual fact the EU has probably provided a lot of benefits for many EU citizens, along with a few albatrosses. Unelected he may be (although I'm sure there must be some system of appointment/election by somebody?), but to mount what was a personal attack on one individual for the sins of the system has probably done more damage to his own message. Confrontational politics of this nature are all about grandstanding and pseudo-oratorial skills, which quite often obscure the real issues.
Yes more intervention from the super-state can be a bad thing, but the protection it affords to weaker states can off-set this. And the UK's independence in the modern global playground is a fallacy. So to point the finger at the EU and its bespectacled president for the ills of the modern global body politic is the easy option. The real problem with the EU is that in a country such as the UK, there is only around a 40% voter turnout, so the lack of voter interest will undermine any actions the EU takes. Yes there are a lot of unelected civil servants making decisions which impact upon our lives, but you don't have to look to the EU to find them.
And shouting and squaking like some demented parrot is not the way to get your message across. Sorry, all for free speech, and the washing away of spin and 'official' statements, but perhaps the pantomime politics which we have to often endure these days is not the answer. Don't tell me why you don't like his or her policies, tell me why I should like yours.
Phew, not bad for a morning rant