> You start by saying that you can't affect the EU democratically (even though you have much more democratic control over your MEP than you do over the House of Lords or your monarch)
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.