That seems to be how the EU works. They did exactly that when Ireland rejected the Lisbon treaty. Ignored the referendum results and basically told them to go back and vote again, until they came up with the right result.

Also De Gucht was appointed to office, not voted in. There is no democratic way to oust him.

It was also the Irish Government that wanted to re-run the Treaty of Nice and Lisbon (they did it twice!). The Irish political mainstream was entirely behind Nice & Lisbon, and they were sorta suprised at the No vote. Hence they decided to re-run it.

The EU has no problem dropping a member state out if that government wants to not take part. The UK didn't want the recent Fiscal Compact, and was going to veto it. So the rest of the EU (bar UK & Czech Rep.) just went ahead with a different treaty.

Appointed by whom?

EU Commissoners are appointed by member states. Roughly one commisoner per state. The European Parliament is elected by the people. The Council of Ministers is made up of the governments.

Can not be un-appointed, or are they like US Supreme court judges and serve for "life".

They can be removed from office, yes. The European Parliament can even impeech the lot of them.

It's democratic to silence a voice once heard? 'Sorry, we decided on that, it can never be tabled again'? Ignore changing morals, new information?

If there's no limit, you can do trivial DDOS to block ANY decision of EU by corrupting one unelected person, that can only be fired by firing the whole European Commision.

That's begging for decision paralysis. The same problem liberum veto had ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto ).

I think it's safe to assume when we voted againist sth once, we can ignore it for next 5 or 10 years.

"re-tabling it before the European Parliament until it passes" is completely different from "tabling it again after x years after new information surfaced".

The former suggests pretty much immediate, repetitive, DoS style re-tabling and an intention to force something through despite that matter having been voted AGAINST - the later suggest good democratic processes.