> This is true, but the Queen's job to sign new laws is purely ceremonial at this point,
The fact that her role is purely ceremonial (at least the parts of it which the British public are privy to) just means that her powers are either unexercised (potentially a dereliction of duty) or are exercised by the Prime Minister, concentrating too much power in one person's hands. If Britain had an elected head of state, with a democratic mandate, then there could be a proper separation of powers, and a less authoritarian executive.
> and while I can't democratically affect the House of Lords, I can affect the House of Commons and the Cabinet.
You may be able to affect one seat in the House of Commons, but the Prime Minister (and the Cabinet) are determined by an extra layer or two of abstraction (just as EU commissioners and the members of the European Council are chosen).
> 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 "not sufficiently accountable" or "not as accountable" rather than completely unaccountable. I would say that there is a trade-off between how accountable/local the government is, and how effective it is at protecting rights and producing positive outcomes for citizens. At one extreme, we'd all be kings of one-person kingdoms, as sovereign individuals, not subject to any other laws, and at the other extreme we'd have a global government with perhaps log2(7 billion) levels of indirect elections. While there might be an intuitive appeal to the idea that the correct balance is for all decisions to be made no further away from you than London (as if there are no decisions made outside the country that can affect Britain), I personally feel that having the EU as an extra level of accountability for the British government is, in practice, beneficial for British citizens (and European citizens generally, to whom the EU is accountable).
> 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.
If non-EU member Norway has decided it is in their interests to enter a bilateral agreement with the EU regarding fishing, then I don't think we can rule out the possibility that Britain would end up in a similar agreement with the EU next year.
> 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
The existence of a bilateral fishing agreement with Norway doesn't mean there are no restrictions on fishing (indeed, it proves that there are restrictions, otherwise there would be no need for an agreement). Also, I'm afraid you're wrong about Norway not being part of a unified international court, since the EFTA Court exists and Norway is subject to its jurisdiction.
> 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.
Is it really certain that carrying out negotiations at the EU level doesn't do Britain any favours? By "negotiations" I assume you are talking about trade negotiations, since the size of quotas is based on scientific evidence, and the allocation of them based on market forces. It seems intuitive to me that when a large economic entity is negotiating with a small economic entity, the larger entity has more bargaining power, since they have more to offer. Therefore Britain is (in general) more likely to receive a favourable deal when negotiating as part of the largest economic bloc in the world (rather than treating that bloc as a competitor in a zero-sum game). Also it's not accurate to treat all trade as being subject to negotiation at the EU level, since Britain can and does negotiate its own trade deals even while a member of the EU:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21496563
> 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.
As for option 1, is anyone really claiming that there is now less fish available to British consumers since joining the Common Fisheries Policy? Similarly for option 2, is there evidence that fish is now more expensive in Britain (and that this isn't caused by historic over-fishing)? You make it sound like Norwegian companies are taking boats over from Norway to the UK, fishing there, taking the fish back to Norway, and then shipping the fish back to the UK for sale in British shops. Given that Norwegian companies (like any other companies) are motivated to cut their costs, it would make more sense for them to take their catch directly to British fish markets, and indeed to use British boats, and even British workers. If Norwegian companies really have increased costs, then presumably their bids for fishing rights are less competitive than the bids of British companies, in which case you have nothing to worry about.