Nah.

The European Parliament is impeccably democratic, its members selected by direct vote of EU citizens under a Proportional Vote system

The EU Council is way less democractic, being just made up of representatives of each local government in Europe with zero representation for any political forces not in government. It's like a giant First Pass The Post system with electoral circles the size of countries, only worse so since citizens don't directly vote for them, they vote for the people who nominate them (they're government ministers, and local governments tend to be selected by local parliaments, who are the ones who are elected). Also in practice there is very little oversight over their actions since the Press barelly talks about them.

The EU Commission is even less democratic than the EU Council, since its members are nominated by the latter, so it's even more indirect. It's supposed by tradition to be one comissioner per country so nowadays there are a lot of commissioners for "irrelevant thing" and the whole thing is the result of a massive game of horse trading and cronyism, especially the head, with the result that plenty of comissioners are complete total crap - the only time my country had somebody as the EU commission head, it was the most crooked Portuguese politician ever to hold an international position (almost the opposite of the current head of the UN who is also a Portuguese) and the once he left after having done everything he could to favor the Finance Industry in the aftermath of the 2008 Crash and went to make millions working as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs he ended up as the only ex-EU Commission president ever to have his EU building access credentials revoked, as he was illegally using it to just enter the buildings whenever he wanted to do do some behind-closed-doors "lobbying". It looks like Germany is currently suffering from the same problem of having put an incompetent crook as EU Commission head.

Unsurprisingly, most of the "unbelievably authocratic" shit comes from the Council or the Commission.

Frankly I can see why the Council is as it is - it makes sense to have a place were the various governments of EU nations get represented - but the Commission should be entirelly chosen by the EU Parliament, just like local parliaments chose governments in all european countries which don't have a strong presidential system.

You are right that there are no perfect democracies, but the EU really isn't even close. Rather the EU should foremost be considered a technocracy with some formal democratic underwriting.

In most cases, that's totally fine and not a problem in terms of democracy. Most policies, especially in the matters the EU was originally formed to make decisions on, there isn't a huge interest for citizens to get involved – national interests (governments) and organized interest/lobby groups usually offer enough avenues for input on things like technical agricultural export standards. However, as the Union expands into things like organizing mass surveillance under flimsy pretexts, and whatnot, private citizens aren't adequately represented – a stronger popular mandate is required for the decisionmaking to truly be considered democratic.

Formally, I, as a citizen of an EU member state, can influence the decisions of the EU in two ways: By voting for my country's parliament every fourth year and by voting in the general elections for European Parliament every fifth. So let's examine how far that goes.

Where I live, the main opposition party and the largest government party generally agree on most controversial issues pertaining to privacy or individual rights, e.g. Chat Control. Together these parties control a majority of the seats of parliament. Those parties gain the bulk of their support on domestic issues, such as tax policy, crime prevention, etcetera. Thus, question like Chat Control are essentially dead on arrival in terms of parliamentary politics. Now, my country is also not a perfect democracy, but comparatively it would (justly) rank quite high and parties can be responsive to popular opinion and outcries. So let's say a citizen group managed to put Chat Control on the agenda, to the point where parties feel vulnerable on the issue. What then? Then that amounts to one vote out of 27 in the European Council, which is only meaningful when that is enough for a veto.

But the ubiquitous vetoes are what truly undermines the EU's standing as a democracy, in my opinion. Notably, vetoes are pretty much the best you can get from your EP vote as well, in terms of the parliament's decision making powers. In reality, the only thing citizens of the EU can rally behind is stopping proposals by, chiefly, the supreme technocratic body, the Commission. There is no cross-border party mechanism with pan-European campaigning on the council level. Voters do not influence majorities. And on the EP level the party mechanism, built on "political groups", is opaque and not truly cross-border. Cohesive citizen involvement is foreign to the EU decision making process.

That is not to say that the EU is a nefarious body, or that the democratic deficiencies are intended to alienate EU citizens from the decision process. It's just that it is glaring, especially in the context of Chat Control, that public opinion isn't in the driver's seat.

You are conveniently ignoring the facts that

• elected officials are only allowed to vote on legislation put forth and that legislation is heavily influenced if not entirely written by corporate lobbyists.
• lobbyists directly bribe their way to favourable outcomes
• democratic processes are simply ignored when inconveniencing the powers that be - see v.d. Leyen never being on the ballot yet holding the highest office
• corruption among high ranking EU officials is like a mafia, and they do not hold elected positions but get appointed, so they can't be voted out.

Yeah okay. But what i have issues with; it is yet another step away from the people (something medium+ sized democracies already struggle with), leading politicians to make decisions in their own interest instead of for the imaginary numbers. On top of that, member states often move the unqualified but powerful/loved politicians there, because they "can do less damage there" (i know multiple cases from Germany).

So i have trouble calling it one, even though it formally is.

What you're describing is a republic not a democracy.

They are theoretically, but coming from Eastern Europe all those levels of abstractions lead to "opportunities" for "managing democracy" and more importantly for alienation of the people because most people do not know what they are voting for or what each of their chosen representativea do when in office.

I am not saying it is a broken system, but I think it can be better and in particular direct participation can be greatly improved.

If the economy is not democratic, it is not a democracy

All I see is a bureaucratic nightmare. No democracy to be seen, starting from the fact all politicians in the EU are bourgeoisie.

Their servants are all unpaid interns who have a near zero chance of ever staying in Brussels. Those that don't come from well-off families that can support them will never enter a single EU institution.