The European parliament is a proper democracy (and unfortunately not powerful enough). It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.

Nitpick: A parliament can't be a democracy. It's a necessary ingredient to a democracy, but a parliament itself is just a room full of politicians. It's perfectly possible (and common) for a parliament to be structured democratically. But if it has no teeth, it's not part of a proper democracy.

Eg China has a parliament too but it's just for show. The EU parliament is somewhere in the middle. Norway's parliament is probably the gold standard.

It's called a parliamentary democracy.

Yeah,which means "a democracy that has a parliament", not "a democracy that is a parliament".

> It's the European commission that kind of lacks democratic legitimacy.

The Council of the European Union as well. Many (but not all) of the government representatives sitting on the Council are elected as MPs in their own countries, but that shouldn't make them a powerful part of the legislature at the EU level.

I wish we had a real bicameral European Parliament instead of this historically grown mess.

A proper democracy is governed by corrupt "politicians" and lobby? Well, if that's the definition, then yes : )

Only if you squint really hard. It's about as undemocratic as an appointed cabinet.

EU MPs are elected.

Yes, but the council isn’t - each member is appointed by the governments. So, my point is, that if you claim its undemocratic then you also have to call national cabinets undemocratic, or ambassadorships undemocratic.

You do realise that every single EU citizen can vote for the EU parliament, right? It doesn't get any more democratic than this.

I think you’ve thoroughly misread my post and it’s context. Please tell me where any citizen can vote for the European Comission - not parliament - which you can’t, because you do realize they are appointed by the heads of government in each country directly, which is why it’s wrongly targeted as “undemocratic”.

My point is that if you call that undemocratic then there is lots of thing probably much closer to home that you should also critisize - like appointed cabinets forming the government - at least in the UK, you elect a local representative - nobody anywhere voted for e.g. Jeremy Hunt to be foreign secretary, so wouldn’t you have to argue that that is undemocratic also?

You do realize that citizens were allowed to vote in all number of dictatorships, right?

Being able to vote is the bare minimum for a democracy, not its ultimate realization.

The accountability of elected officials, the procedures, who and when voted for those procedures, the processes used, etc., are more important than merely being able to vote.

In fact the mere decline in participation and lack of voter engagement is also indicative of the disconnect between Brussels and the national EU-voters.

I'm more left-of-center myself, but even the right-of-center Economist put it somewhat well (if mildly):

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-st...

"Proper" just in that its members are voted for (and often, the national regional populace can't even vote them directly, they are appointed by party leaders and the vote is wholesale).

Not proper in that it's wanted, established by popular demand, accountable, has checks and balances, and moves according to the voters will.

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/05/15/elected-yet-st...