Honestly, having read many EU standards, they are usually some of the most sensible, reasonable legislation you could ask, on both the consumer and producer side. Most silliness that gets blamed on them is either willfull misinterpretation of the rules ('EU says banana must be straight!'. No, EU says bananas must not be misshapen (by, for example, having a 90 degree bend in the middle of an otherwise normally shaped banana) if they are to be classed above a certain grade), or excessive risk aversion on the part of companies (usually driven by lawyers).

Like GDPR, where they claim like lunatics that their laws apply to every business in the world?

I don’t care how well-meaning or reasonable sounding their laws generally are. They clearly don’t have a clue.

They claim their law applies to their citizens. Especially on the internet, where a company can be 'based' wherever will regulate them the least, this is a reasonable compromise.

Wrong. A law that applies to their citizens would be a law forbidding their citizens from doing business with companies with crappy privacy policies.

National governments do crazy stuff like this constantly too. They also do useful things. So does the EU. The case (or at least this case) against the EU is pretty much the same as the case against all governments.

The right question isn't "does this organization do crazy things?" but "do the good things outweigh the bad, or the other way around?".

The other thing is that I think a lot of the "EU does crazy things" narrative is deliberately, and dishonestly, pushed by people who are more interested in making the EU look bad than in the truth. (I am not suggesting that sarcasmOrTears is such a person: only that their perception of what the EU does may have been affected by the long-running Make The EU Look Bad campaign.)

But your own government answers to you.

That’s what the Magna Carta was about. Also the US revolution.

So does the EU. MEPs are elected just as democratically as MPs (in the UK), Representatives/Senators (in the US), etc.

Magna Carta was about the balance of power between the king and the barons; commoners' interests come into it only incidentally.

The American Revolution is a slightly better case, but note that its "No taxation without representation!" battle-cry wouldn't be any sort of case against the EU because (1) everyone in EU countries does have respresentation, and (2) while for some countries EU membership is a net cost (at least if you ignore the benefits of free trade, free movement, etc.) that cost is a tiny fraction of those countries' total revenue base; e.g., the UK's net contribution is about £8B/year, which is a little over 1% of total UK taxes.

Precisely. The balance of power is crazy.