That's the thing, I see it as 60% vs 60%. Our commissioner is picked by the Prime Minister so is effectively there to help make laws that benefit the UK (or whatever legislation the Tories would like to bring in). This is no different to the cabinet positions as I see it. Sure, we get to vote for the MPs before they make it to the cabinet but it's still Cameron picking the people who come up with the legislation. I can't vote for which MP will become Health Secretary and I can't vote for our member of the EU commission.
On the flip side we vote for MEPs and we vote for our Government who is represented in the Council when needed. If either the Council or Parliament can't agree on a proposal it never gets put through so its not like we don't have a say. The House of Lords on the other hand can completely scrap any bit of legislation they don't like the look of, even if our elected officials have passed it through.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the EU system is any better than our own, but I don't see how it's any worse. It's just different and has to take into account 28 countries. Like I said earlier, two systems, both shit.
Honestly, it feels to me like we're using the EU as a scape-goat instead of blaming our own politicians and MEPs incompetence for not representing our interests properly.
Well I don't disagree with much of that. But how does that end up as 60% vs 60% to you? It's a slightly undemocratic system combined with another slightly democratic system. It's just basic maths. If you were to say each of them is 80% democratic, the combined effect would be 0.8*0.8=0.64