Dream on. The EU is and always has been the property of the six founding members, as indeed it should be. They originally came together with a plan to have integrated economies, with each constituent country contributing something different to provide the whole. They didn't need a seventh, or eighth, or whatever country to come on board. Why was de Gaulle always opposed to our membership? Because we were more likely to side with Germany than France. France and French politicians see France's perceived political clout as probably the most important consideration. They always have done. They are currently opposed to any concessions because our leaving will improve their relative importance.
The EU remains fundamentally unreformable because there is no mechanism for reversing policy. The Euro is killing the southern countries and without political union will do so ad infinitum. The quid pro quo is of course Germany's obscene balance of payments surplus courtesy of a weak Euro exchange rate relative to the strength of the economy. All those German funded (and to date also UK funded) payments to the new and under-developed countries are promptly recycled into the purchase of German industrial output. The chronic unemployment seen in the southern countries makes it manifestly clear that the system is not healthy. Germany pays, and will be paying more in the future, but is able to do so, and so the ship sails blissfully on.
Every country that has joined since the 1950s has effectively been providing a semi-captive market for the goods of the 6. It's their ball, and whether you are allowed to play depends on how much you bribe them.