Yes, that’s true.

However, we should first try to amend the rules, in order to avoid bad actors stalling decisions (like Hungary)

Then:

1. Political parties: you don’t vote for S&Ds or PPE. You vote for CDU, Les Republicans (I guess?) or Forza Italia. The US votes R or D (with few exceptions). Would renaming and unifying parties a good idea? I don’t know, but it would create a political continuum and “the EU told us to do so” would cease to have any significant meaning. Here in IT it happens that politicians vote something at the EU level and the they lambast it at home. Also, it would be better if people have more importance to the European Parliament elections than they do now
2. The Euro: why is Sweden gaming the rules. This is badly phrased, but they avoid to meet one of the five required parameters needed for € adoption because they had a referendum and it didn’t pass. DK I think has an opt out, so it’s different, PL, BG, RO still don’t meet the requirements but I think they eventually will adopt the Euro. Isn’t a single currency instrumental?
3. The identity: as a person’s age grows, it’s more likely that they lack a strong European identity (this is empirical, so take it with a grain of salt)
4. A constitution: some progress was made in the early 2000s, but then the process stalled (because the French and the nordics referendums iirc)
5. An army: this is controversial but sometimes pops up

This is what should be done, in my opinion, to bring EU member states closer and more tightly integrated. Also, I think that we can further integrate without risking to get into a USA 2025 situation