(Genuine question. I can see some examples, such as the completely idiotic requirement that forces web sites to have those exceedingly irritating pop-ups for consent to have cookies. Whoever wrote that law clearly didn't understand how web sites work, socially.)
In terms of being a political union, the EU doesn’t even do that much. It does do some things, but those things tend to be overall small and also relatively uncontroversial.
The bulk of the work the EU does in “creating” rules in unifying regulations. For the common market to exist (i.e. to drive economic unification) you need unified regulation. Otherwise trade barriers would exist.
That means you have to write lots and lots of deadly boring regulation. And that’s what the EU did. Yawn. All a very technocratic process.
(I’m also not sure why you think people in Brussels are unaccountable. That’s such a cliché propaganda line with no basis in reality at all.)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=OJ%3AC%3A...
http://europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm
The Constitution for Europe alone is more than 400 pages. For comparison, the US Constitution is about 10. (Unfortunately the US legal code is probably as lengthy and baroque as the EU's by this point.)
> For the common market to exist (i.e. to drive economic unification) you need unified regulation.
No, you don't. Global markets existed before the EU and didn't need "unified regulation" (meaning regulation by politicians and bureaucrats, as opposed to regulation by the ordinary process of voluntary trade) in order to work. This idea that the only way to have common markets is by lengthy, boring political regulation is precisely the misconception I am arguing against.
Your view on this is hopelessly naive and really anti-intellectual and dishonest.
You're still assuming that countries have to set standards. Many standards are not set by countries at all; they are set by markets, by buyers and sellers realizing that a common standard is in both their interests and agreeing on one. (You are also assuming that it is always a good thing for the same product to be sold in both countries--that there can't possibly be good reasons why two different diameters might be used in different places. If standards are left to markets--i.e., to the people who are actually directly affected by what is bought and sold--then those kinds of issues take care of themselves.) Your view on this is hopelessly blinded by your assumptions.
You are living in a fantasy world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electrical_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Standards_In...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSF_International
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade_certification
What are these? They are just a few examples of private organizations that develop, maintain, and enforce unified standards for products, within the US and worldwide. There are many, many others.
> You are living in a fantasy world.
No, you are, with your belief that the only way to get unified standards--assuming that we are dealing with something that needs them--is for governments to set them. Governments can set standards, yes. But they are not the only way to set them. IMO they are usually the worst way to set them, because government officials have the least stake of all parties involved in making the standards the best ones possible.
"Harmonizing" of rules tends to take away rights from the general public - much more often than it does to give them.
If software patents get lobbied through a fully independent UK/GB/EN (whatever it ends up) government there will be less protest as there are less people to make a noise.
On the flip side I hope it makes people more politically active, if the EU isn't there to make the decision for you (in support or against) then it is left to the people of the independent country to influence their government.
Entering into that conversation whatever the issue can only help understanding and rational decisions.
This reminds me of the old joke about regular expressions, which I'll paraphrase thus: Someone has a problem, and they say, hey, I'll just get the government to fix it! Now they have two problems.
The only reason why small groups of people with a common issue have to have a political voice is that big governments give out special privileges to people, so every interest group has to lobby to get the privileges given to them instead of someone else. But if governments couldn't give special privileges to anyone, then nobody would have to lobby for them.
No, they don't. They only need to agree on what is being traded and at what price.