Sorry but that is drivel. Have you seen the Commons debate a bill? It is usually 2/3 empty and then when the division comes MP's scurry in from the Bar and Coffee rooms (or maybe their office) and then file through the lobby their whips tell them to go into.
I've been to the House of Commons a few times, and watch PMQ's fairly often.
Here is a (fairly lengthy) list of times the Government of the day has been defeated in the Commons. It may not always be full, but anything important (like PMQ's) and MPs are regularly having to sit on the floor as it's so packed.
Remember the Government defeat on the Syrian war in 2013? That's the power of the House of Commons at work. The European Parliament by comparison is feeble.
Stephen Crabb the DWP minister voted to cut ESA by £30 a week for WRAG group claimants. When he defended it in his local paper he got the whole concept and legal status of the WRAG group wrong. The minister didn't even understand the legislation he voted on! That is the reality of the working of the HofC.
An anecdote about Stephen Crabb getting something wrong = what, the HoC is broken? OK......
You complain that people wouldn't know the differences between the presidents but how many UK voters can name all the cabinet? or explain what each department is responsible for? or name their local councillor? or their Police Commissioner? these are all elected positions so does the fact that the average UK voter could not name all the permanent heads of the various government departments mean the UK Government is entirely undemocratic? Do you know who the Cabinet secretary is? When did you elect him to his position? when did Parliament elect him? or even ratify him?
Name ALL of the cabinet? I was talking about the difference between the Council and the Commission, you've raised the bar quite a bit!
I would hope most people in the UK could name their own member of Parliament. 66% of UK citizens voted in the 2015 General Election, 35.6% of people in the UK voted for an MEP in the last MEP elections in 2014. That's a big difference.
You can try and use extreme examples to prove your point (Police Commissioners, really?) but you can't deny people generally don't understand the EU, how it works, they don't engage with it, and that generally it operates in a secret, behind closed door manner, just how they like it.
And as has been pointed out, just like the EU discriminates in favour of EU migrants over those from the rest of the world, representation in the Parliament is a joke, we have 1 MEP for every 840,000 people, Luxembourg has 1 MEP for every 77,000. So effectively every Luxembourg citizen has over 10x the representation in the Parliament, nice.
Actually very few places have full separation of powers and the UK definitely does not. The PM is head of the Executive and a member of the Legislature as are all ministers some of the executive come from the House of Lords so they are members of the executive and legislature but wholly unelected. Until quite recently the Lord Chancellor was a member of and head of the Judiciary and in the executive and in the Legislature.
We have 22 Cabinet ministers, every single one of them is an elected MP bar one (
here). The one exception is the Lord Privy Seal, which is a historic tradition, and the use of a privy seal has been obsolete for centuries. So stop trying to conflate the argument, our executive has been duly elected and are accountable to Parliament, the same cannot be said for the European Commission.
Oh yes the UK would never sign an extradition treaty with a non EU nation that didn't protect its citizens. Might want to have a look at this one:
UK - US Extradition Treaty 2003.
So what's your point? If you're criticizing the UK-US Extradition treaty (which for the record I think has major issues) then why are you happy to stand up for the European Arrest Warrant which carries many of the same criticisms?
