While the EU may be very well unfit to manage Libyan foreign policy, the question remains if sufficient humanitarian or economic interests are served by military involvement from any western nation. Yes, Khaddafy is a very repressive tyrant who has and will brutally suppress dissent. However, it's quite a stretch to assume that if the rebels overthrew him the results would be more humane or worthy of western support. Whose interests are served if the rebels support Al Queda? Even if this is all about oil, how do we know it serves our interests?
Before Libya's independence in 1951, it had a tribal history. How do we know that if Khaddafy abdicates or is overthrown, it won't revert back to a tribal state? I don't think the rebels' idea of democracy is anything like ours. If Libya currently doesn't have or may never had a Supreme Court or Bill of Rights, it's unlikely
for regime change to bring one.
How often in history have rebellions created worse regimes than their predecessors? The Bolshevik Revolution was one. The overthrow of Louis XVI was another. Without a history of western style civil society, rebellions will often disappoint western observers. It takes a lot more than young demonstrators accessing Facebook on laptops to create a viable western like nation.