While it's sort of democratic, IMO the EU totally went wrong on separating the powers. The Commission is in many ways a Legislative body [1], without it pretty much nothing happens in EU government. So it's an indirect indirect democracy with screwed up checks and balances. Call that what you want, as a Swiss I don't want anything to do with it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission#Legislativ...

The head of the Commission is now chosen by the Parliament. Juncker was the EPP candidate.

And how is that any different from a civil service? Let me guess - you've never seen an episode of "Yes, Minister", have you?

Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Civil service has a very specific meaning to me, am obligated to do it as a male Swiss.

I agree that there's too much indirection, and I wish we'll make it more directly representative.

I never thought I'd find myself quoting Tony Benn, but I think his "five questions" are very much on point:

"If one meets a powerful person--Rupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitler--one can ask five questions: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."

The head of the Commission is voted in or out ever 4-5 years (previously by representatives of governments, now by the Parliament). The representatives can be removed through national democratic processes, and the Parliament is directly elected.

Moreover, countries can leave at any time, as the UK has just done. All round, seems to exceed your criteria.

Well, ish. AIUI the President of the Commission is still nominated by the European Council; the Parliament can veto that nomination but can't propose their own. (Rather like their role in legislation.)

Your "Moreover, countries can leave at any time, as the UK has just done." sounds a bit odd in the context of this argument. "It's silly for countries to leave the EU on the grounds that it's not democratic, when it's obviously democratic because countries can leave the EU".

>the President of the Commission is still nominated by the European Council

Yes, technically correct. What happened last time however was that the EP said "We want Juncker and we'll veto anyone else". There was a long staring contest and the EP eventually won. A veto isn't a technicality that you can approximate away - it's just as important as being able to propose laws.

The national leaders generally didn't like this, because they prefer the EU being more like a (huge, weird) deal negotiation table than something with direct representation. The national leaders are ultimately in charge, so this whole episode is mostly an unforeseen consequence of past treaties that they're willing to tolerate.

UK with its house of Lords, no constitution, monarch as head of state, and members of parliament who somehow seem to come from same schools/universities is not exactly the best example of Democracy

But hey look at EU over there

The U.K. Has a constitution, just not a single written document. It's the oldest extant constitutional government: even at the time of the Magna Carta 800 years ago the English were following constitutional principles.

>how can we get rid of you?

Well, you could try voting for national politicians and EP fractions that doesn't like the person in question. It's unlikely to succeed, for much the same reason that voting to get rid of national politicians is unlikely to succeed, but that's more of a tyranny of the majority kind of thing.

The country whose chambers are called "Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled" and "Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled" has an issue with the European form of democracy. Not enough inherited power, I guess.