For example, it was Britain that introduced the Snoopers' Charter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016
without any encouragement from the EU, and indeed that Act has since been found incompatible with European law.
Out of interest, can you name another example where the EU was authoritarian (acting in a way that the British government wouldn't have)?
> Out of interest, can you name another example where the EU was authoritarian (acting in a way that the British government wouldn't have)?
I can't really speak to things the EU would do that the British government wouldn't - as you've already said, the UK government is pretty bad too. But we have more democratic control over the UK government than we do the European, because it's more localised. I've heard many examples of overreaching EU directives through listening to parliamentary debates but my memory sucks, so I'll give you a couple of examples that I can remember without re-researching the topic: the EU national fishing quotas (famous for decimating the British fishing industry), and the EU's "enthusiasm" for collective bargaining at the WTO. Rather than negotiate directly, many of Britain's trade agreements are bundled up into the EU's and then the EU makes special concessions to Britain. We've actually been historically quite good at forcing the EU to give us trade concessions so as far as I am aware it's not been too harmful to our prospects (I welcome a correction from anyone more well-versed in the UK's international trade standing) but it's still an example of EU authoritarian practices.
Excuse the triple pun, but speaking of "in net", I don't see how EU national fishing quotas are an example of authoritarianism. I suppose you are saying it is an example of state-overreach, but my understanding is that the quotas are set to avoid over-fishing of British waters (a problem which has historically done more to decimate fish populations than any EU politician has), and to allow an open market for deciding which fishing companies are allowed which part of the quota (leading to better prices for the consumer). You may not like the idea that non-British citizens can fish in British waters, but it could equally be argued that it would be state-overreach for the British government to effectively raise the price of fish to give a subsidy to British fish catchers.
This is true, but the Queen's job to sign new laws is purely ceremonial at this point, and while I can't democratically affect the House of Lords, I can affect the House of Commons and the Cabinet. The House of Lords is a bit of a relic at this point and though I don't know of any bad things they've done, I am skeptical of their existence.
> It's true that your MEP has a wider constituency than your MP, for example, but as I see it, the "less democratic" EU is actually undoing the authoritarian tendencies of the British government
This is not the EU's job. It is the remit of the British people to hold our government to account, not an even higher, more abstracted government that is even less accountable to the people. The EU can make good decisions and bad decisions, but in either case it is unaccountable to the people it is supposed to serve.
> I suppose you are saying it is an example of state-overreach, but my understanding is that the quotas are set to avoid over-fishing of British waters
This is the same as above. As an island nation with limited resources we have to manage our ecology and stocks of fish. The EU is not in the right position to do this. Our fishing industry has been suppressed leading to even less job opportunities in the coastal North, but then Norway (which is not an EU member but has mutual fishing agreements with it) is permitted to come in and fish our waters. So you don't even get the theoretical benefit of the EU's legislation in this case, because the EU has handed the supposedly-restricted fishing rights to another country that is only bound by trade agreements, not membership under a unified international court. And I have to ask - who benefits? Because the EU negotiates over all its member states, and this arrangement certainly doesn't do Britain any favours. I did enjoy the pun though ;)
> it could equally be argued that it would be state-overreach for the British government to effectively raise the price of fish to give a subsidy to British fish catchers.
Excluding transportation costs, this might be true. But we're not talking about an open market - the EU licenses which countries can fish British waters. If Norwegian fishing boats are collecting British fish and selling them from Norway, there are two options: 1) they aren't selling them to Britain, leading to a simple drain on our natural resources, and 2) they are selling to Britain, adding transport costs (both fiscal and ecological) to the production of fish, meaning increased costs. I agree with the need to regulate the waters, but it should be Britain that manages its own resources (after all, the incentives are aligned to provide for future generations, 5-year election cycle notwithstanding) by capping the fishing, but choosing for itself which fishing vessels get to harvest our waters. This way Britain can balance its own interests between increasing supply of locally-caught fish, and exchanging use of our natural resources in mutually-beneficial international exchange.
