A more serious response is that democracy can only be justified by its outcomes, and isn't a good thing in itself. A racist democracy that votes to harm minorities is worse than a dictatorship that upholds human rights and prevents the majority harming the rest. With the rise of explicitly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim parties in Europe, this is not a theoretical consideration.
All proposed alternatives will give us more elected politicians adhering to party lines. None of the alternatives will give us better government.
Lords are pretty good at being difficult in the face of bad legislation - yet every time a notable instance takes place there are more calls to abolish the place. Their party allegiance mellows as they age - so you get Tory peers ridiculing some aspect of the current Tory government. Last there are enough independents (usually with long non-political careers) to bring domain knowledge and independent thought to the place.
Most instances of Lords reform have been as a result of them doing their job well, inconveniencing or embarrassing the elected government of the day.
It's not democratic, but it works.
The EU on the other hand has a so-called "Parliament" which cannot propose legislation, cannot amend legislation and cannot repeal legislation. It has neither "Government" nor "Opposition", being essentially a rubber-stamping body for the unelected EU Commission.
You seem to prefer this to the idea of allowing people a democratic choice simply because a minority of those people are voting for parties of whom you do not approve.
However what happens when that unelected group (which is lacking in democratic restraints) starts to act in ways even more harmful than its current actions?
You might not like Democracy, but at least it allows the possibility of correcting its mistakes.
It's worth pointing out that most of the people saying this about May are having a bit of fun. The Torys and right wing papers made a huge deal out of Gordon Brown being "unelected", but for some reason are silent when the same situation arrises with a Tory PM.
>(2) The Queen is the Head of State but does not control our Democracy - she doesn't even have a vote
She does have the power to veto laws though, and she has done so[1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...
Britain's PM is technically a Royal appointment, nobody ever gets "elected to be PM". By convention, the party leader winning at the last election is nominated, hence bringing some democratic legitimacy to the role. However, whenever someone else gets the job in unorthodox ways, like May or Brown did through changing equilibria in their parties, such legitimacy is clearly lacking. The only way we have to express that situation is by saying that the current PM is "unelected", and the PM is supposed to rectify this state by calling for a general election where he or she will obtain popular legitimacy.
Anyone following UK politics for more than 10 minutes knows perfectly well how this works, and trying to fight the definition through pedantry is, by itself, a partisan statement.
> The EU on the other hand has a so-called "Parliament" which cannot propose legislation
But it can veto it, blocking anything they want.
> cannot amend legislation
In practice it does, through the various committees "helping" the Commission.
> cannot repeal legislation
That is a problem, but it's not terrible in itself; a Parliament who'd want a certain directive dropped would express a popular will that the Council would likely share; which in turn would make the Commission prepare a superseding directive.
> It has neither "Government" nor "Opposition"
In practice it does. The Commission President is the candidate of the party winning the largest amount of seats, and the Parliament President is the candidate of the runner-up party. The most popular party will naturally be in government in most countries, hence dictating the agenda in Commission and Council. The Parliament can try blocking legislation, much like a national opposition would do.
> being essentially a rubber-stamping body
That's unfair. Directives can change quite dramatically when going through committees; in some cases, the final result is almost the opposite of what was first introduced, to the horror of commissioners who then drop them. The stats about votes don't reflect the fact that, since veto powers were introduced in 2009, directives without Parliament support simply don't come up for a vote, because every vote against the Commission weakens it. Much like a government would do...
> the unelected EU Commission.
The Commission President is an elected MEP who is nominated as candidate by the party before the election; and the Commissioners are nominated by elected governments through the Council.
> what happens when that unelected group [...] starts to act in ways even more harmful
You leave. Any member state can leave at any time by triggering the famous art. 50. The EU has no army to stop you from doing that.
Of course, if your own national elites don't really want to do it, that's a problem; but that's a problem with your national elite, not with "European tyrants".
Article 50 isn't a serious thing. The guy who wrote it admitted he assumed it'd never be used and he didn't put any thought into it, as it was only put in there to shut up the Brits. The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave and the constitutional possibility of doing so was only added recently, in a half-arsed way.
Parliament gets exactly what it wants, or no one gets anything. That's an awesome power in my book!
> Article 50 isn't a serious thing.
Well it's on the books, it's law, so it's as serious as they come. Should Brexit ever come to pass, it will be thanks to that article. As an euroskeptic, you should love it!
> The guy who wrote it [...] didn't put any thought into it
That's a feature shared by a lot of laws at all levels, I'm afraid. They are still laws. We don't pick and choose what we obey depending on our opinion of whether the legislator put in enough effort. When laws are unclear or badly written, there are ways to correct them. There is even a procedure to correct that article, it just requires agreement with the other member countries. But tbh, if you want to leave sooner than what art.50 states, I don't think anyone will stop you -- indeed nobody can, because, again, no army.
> The EU has never seriously considered the possibility any country would actually leave
It wouldn't matter anyway, because "the EU" is all about consensus among member states, which really are the ones dictating the agenda at all times. Without army or police, there is nothing stopping countries to leave at any moment. Despite that, 27 countries are still in there and more are applying, so "the EU" must be doing something right -- unless you believe in lizard people or "mass brainwashing"...
"The guy" is Giuliano Amato, former PM of Italy. If you care to read the interview he gave on this topic, he never said he did not put any thought into it. Just that it was designed to be a difficult procedure.
"Elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece were toppled in Brussels-backed coups. Eurocrats were brought in to head what were, in effect, civilian juntas, whose purpose was to pursue a series of economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. Or consider the EU’s response whenever a referendum goes against closer integration, as in Denmark, France, Ireland or the Netherlands. Public opinion is treated as an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction."