No subject

power to the parliament, and lot of power to unelected officials.
Where that power would have come from, I either didn't know or don't
remember.  Maybe it was taken from the member states, or maybe from
the people directly.

I am not sure how much of this effect remains in the Lisbon
pseudo-constitution, but I expect it is similar, because it was
written by the same people and this is what those people sought.

This effect can be very important.  Consider:

France has adopted the evil HADOPI 3-strikes law.  However, in the
next election, it is at least conceivable for another party to win and
eliminate the HADOPI law.  At that level, the the system is still
democratic.

ACTA makes things much worse, because it will link 3-strikes or some
other nasty copyright policies to other things that certain businesses
very much want.  In principle, people could elect leaders who will
pull the country out of ACTA so as to get rid of the 3-strikes
requirement.  But the businesses that very much want the other ACTA
requirements will lobby against this, and pay the mass media to
denounce it as "drastic", "crazy", "anti-business", and worse.

But ACTA connected with the EU will be even worse, I think.  Because
adherence to ACTA will be an EU requirement.  Any refusal to implement
3-strikes will violate EU norms.  Practically speaking, the people in
any European country will have no way to get rid of the law that has
been imposed on them, as long as they remain in the EU.  The EU
parliament will also be powerless to change this law.

My conclusion is, "For democracy's sale, leave the EU."

    We as the pirate parties depend upon the EU; our demands are global  
    and cannot be fulfilled on a national scale. Lose the EU - lose the  
    chance to change, it's that easy!

I think you have it backwards.  It is impossible to change these
policies democratically at the EU level, because the EU is
undemocratic.  In an individual country, there may be a democratic
system through which people can make changes -- but not if the EU
succeeds in forbidding the changes.

    Denounce the EU as unjust? I'm sorry that I have to be that clear but  
    you don't have an idea what the EU is 

You are guessing, and guessing wrong.

During my efforts to block the software patent directive, working with
the EU parliamentary Green Party, I studied in detail the procedures
for adopting EU directives.  What I learned is that the parliament has
a small role in making the decisions.  Also, the voting rules make it
very hard for the parliament to insist on rejecting anything.

If the EU makes a directive that the people don't like, then even if
people elect representatives in the next EU parliament that want to
eliminate the directive, they cannot do so without the support of the
European Commission.  The Commission must have wanted the directive,
and it is unlikely to have changed its mind.  So it will block any
repeal directive.

					  and what it did

The EU and its predecessor have done many good things, but that is a
different question.  The point is that the EU as it is now is not very
democratic.

							  the last 60  
    years!

The EU was created in the 90s.  It replaced another organization (was
it the European Community?) which had much less power.  Under that
earlier organization, the main center of power was still in the
national governments; where those were democratic, the EU's
predecessor did not cause a lack of democracy.

The EU parliament was created along with the EU.  It gave the EU a
little democracy, but not much.  The EU parliament does not have the
power that parliaments normally have in a democratic system.