Fred
There is a word in Eurospeak for what you are describing. It is ‘subsidiarity’ - the idea that decisions should be taken in the closest appropriate political unit to the individual citizen. The principle has been written into the recent treaties and constitutional proposals for the EU.
The real enemies of this approach are the governments of the member states who enjoy wide direct legislative powers when they act as the European Council - powers far wider than they enjoy for domestic legislation.
There are different types of European legislation. There are regulations which are a type of ‘federal’ legislation. But most legislation takes the form of directives where the EU sets the aims and standards and it is up to the member states to frame the actual laws to fit local conditions. Is that what you were recommending? Because that’s pretty much how it works now.
Dangermouse
The European Union is not a conspiracy against the United Kingdom or British people(s).
You gave four examples: lead in stained glass windows, imperial measures, health and safety legislation and taxation.
As for lead in windows, it’s a health issue. The law may be silly but if it’s silly, it’s silly because it’s a disproportionate response not because it comes from Europe. (I’m not sure that your average Brit has been enjoying stained glass windows at home for thousands of years though! 
)
Imperial measures - well things change. And people adapt. I (only just) remember the ‘old money’ before decimalisation. (Pounds, shillings and pence). People didn’t like that and that was before the UK joined the EU. I’m also of an age to find metric easier to deal with. Kilos make more sense to me than pounds do. I wouldn’t know an ounce if it bit me on the nose. Saying that metric must be used is a consumer protection measure to ensure ease of price comparison. It’s not illegal anyway to use both, but you must sell in standard sizes and show the metric. (As Vannyell might say, it’s not a great infringement of human rights! 
)
I tend to believe that health and safety legislation is per se a ‘good thing’. I don’t care where it comes from. I know it’s incovenient sometimes but I would hate to go back to the days of widespread occupational diseases. I wish that employers in Taiwan had a broader ‘duty of care’ for their employees than they do. Economically speaking, low health and safety standards acts a ‘hidden subsidy’ for capital. Sensible health and safety legislation encourages capital to use labour efficiently, in my view, and in the longer run everybody’s happier. In addition, in a single market you have to have broadly similar labour standards to ensure fair competition.
Maybe there is another ideological difference at work here too. I tend to agree with Fred’s friend, that bold conservative Jacques Chirac, on this point: We want to have a market economy, but not a market society! :uhhuh:
Taxes - The central budget of the EU institutions receives a tiny proportion of the total tax revenues in the EU area. Of course you can point to silly overspends at a European level, or to policies that should be changed. But these things don’t just happen at EU level. How much over budget was the new Scottish parliament building? Started at GBP40m and ended up at GBP431m! And don’t you remember the debacle about the Lord Chancellor’s wallpaper?
A single market requires single external tariffs and a certain degree of tax harmonisation - no way around it.
)