The key difference here is that while that is theoretically the case, the Queen does not in practice arbitrarily dissolve parliament, and her appointing the prime minister is basically a formality. The House of Lords, while it is fairly undemocratic, doesn't seem to be doing any worse a job of looking out for the rest of us than the Commons are. Contrast this to the various EU directives which frequently are interfering in local affairs, often not in a way that's in our best interests.

I think we need to seperate two issues here: One is whether or not a particular government does a good job and the other is how democratic it is.

The first question is too subjective in general to have a useful debate. I'll just say that complaints about interference in local affairs have been a mainstay of all political unions ever formed, including The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Just ask the Scottish. And it's completely natural because "interference" is just another word for "governing".

However, the parent post was about the democratic legitimacy of the EU commission. The commission is not directly elected just as most other governments are not directly elected. In most countries cabinet ministers are not even elected MPs. Parliaments are elected and sometimes heads of states but rarely governments. The closest thing to an elected government are probably the presidential systems in the US and France.

Most critics of the EU do not want an elected EU president or a directly elected EU commission as that would obviously take away more powers from the nation states. That's a legitimate position, but it's incompatible with criticising the EU for not being democratic enough.

A closer comparison is the suggestion that although UK government departments are headed by ministers, they are actually run by the permanent civil service, which is akin to the EU Commission.