I don't particularly agree with what was done to Greece (although the Greek government must also take a lot of responsibility). But disagreeing with certain actions of an institution is different to believing that we don't need that institution. Do you agree with everything the British government has ever done? If not, do you think we should get rid of the British government?
Sometimes, yes. That's sort of what elections are for.
No. We need to judge by results.
OK. Do you think that the results of how the economic crisis was handled are good? Bear in mind that things are so bad that the IMF are openly talking about outlawing cash to allow banks to levy an income tax to stay afloat. Or that the ECB's interest rates are still negative and probably about to get moreso - something we were told was an emergency measure, what, 10 years ago? And then there's that 39.something % youth unemployment rate in Greece and other very high levels in other countries which represent now people who are 30 years old and have never had a job?
Things are not good and are only kept from looking as bad as they are by printing massive amounts of money and pushing it 75 and even 100 years down the road while central banks call 2% inflation "stable prices" and care not a jot about the fact that they're doing everything they can to discourage people saving for their futures. I know that this stuff applies to more than the EU, but at the moment I see no way of breaking out of the pack as long as we are shackled by people like Mark Carney who's only goal in life is to be feted by his peers.
I don't think you understand how the British government works. Very little legislation originating in the house of commons becomes law. Most of it comes through the government, which has to pass it through parliament for approval and amendment.
While that is true, a lot of major legislation has its ultimate source in manifestos, so it's not quite as dictatorial as you make it sound. Of course, there are many "self-intersted charlatans who were prepared to lie through their teeth to get what they wanted", so it's hardly perfect. Less so in the wake of the Lib Dem's "reforms" to parliament which gave us fixed-terms and made it very hard to shift a government that digs its heels in.
Comparing the European Commission to the house of lords is wrong. The European Commission is more like the government of the UK (please don't try too hard to pick holes in the analogy - it's not perfect). It proposes most of the legislation that becomes enacted into law. Who appoints the European Commission? The elected governments of the EU member states, and the elected European Parliament. It's hard to see how this is undemocratic.
The rubber-stamping of the selected commissioners by the EP isn't a terribly active ingredient in the recipe.
The broader answer to your point however is that any representative government is less democratic than a direct "Athenian" system - many Americans will tell you proudly that their country is not a Democracy but a Republic. No one who's studied Athenian history in the so-called Golden Age would be likely to defend their system but at the same time the more indirect the link between people and representative with power the more problematic things become and the less the advantages of a republic are visible. In particular, there is more risk there is of "representative capture" where the people supposedly working in the organisation start to work FOR the organisation because the only people they have contact with are in there. Anyway. I've stuff to do but I'll leave this bit at that point - the EU's actual practical structure does not lend itself to reminding the people in power that there is a world outside, or even a world outside the world outside where they work.
We could consider a directly elected European Commission. But European governments tend not to like the idea, as it would create an alternative power-base to themselves, perhaps of a different political colour. The current system keeps the EU more under the control of the member states. An elected Commission would be more independent of the member states. You can make arguments for or against either approach, but I suspect europhobes would hate the elected system even more.
An elected system would have some legitimacy at least. Obviously there'd be a lot of other things that would have to change too to make it work; they're not going to happen.
