should we have another Brexit Referendum?

Don't beat around the bush Sandy, if you have a criticism then spell it out.

Do you understand that different trading standard laws in the different member states across the EU act as a barrier to trade? Do you know that EU members are made wealthier if they replace their national laws with  standardised EU-wide laws? That's what the Commission mostly concerns itself with. They draft standard laws and then they have to convince the democratically elected Parliament to make their draft laws into actual laws. If they can't convince Parliament, it doesn't become law.

The general public doesn't care about these laws on the whole. Who do you know who has an opinion on the best model for a standardised law of trademarks?

It's all about mindset. When the EU introduced a law, remainers were pleased that another obstacle to trade was removed and that the UK would benefit from increased trade. Brexiters, on the other hand, saw it as an unjustified imposition on sovereignty. Well, you can have absolute sovereignty or ever-increasing wealth. You preferred the former.

No, the Commission cannot introduce laws. They have to convince Parliament that their draft laws are appropriate and if Parliament doesn't like them, they reject them. So what if the Parliament can't suggest amendments? If it doesn't like what the Commission is proposing without the amendments it wants, it just rejects the whole thing.

Two points:
1. It's obviously perfectly reasonable for countries that trade together to agree to common standards for the goods that they're trading. That's normal. What is NOT normal is for an overarching bureaucracy to determine the standards for ALL products being produced in those countries. That would be like the UK telling the USA that it would have to adopt all our product standards before they can sell us beef. That's what the EU does. If you're an EU member absolutely every manufacturer in the UK has to obey EU regulations regardless of whether they trade with the EU or not. It imposes huge burdens on small companies.  

2. Tariff free trade between countries doesn't necessarily make all countries wealthier. It's NOT a panacea. The ideal relationship between two countries is where there is little overlap between the goods that they're trading. If you agree a free trade deal with a country that is a direct competitor with you it can make you a lot poorer. The obvious example is when we joined the "Common Market" (as it then was) and our car companies had to compete with the likes of Germany. Look what happened. We had more car companies than any country in the world and we now have none. That's because they couldn't compete with Germany - which has the benefit of an undervalued currency and access to cheap labour in Hungary etc. 

As for your points about the rules having to be approved by the EU parliament, it's more complex than that. There are a lot of rules that are approved by the Council, not the Parliament- and some rules are approved by both. It's pretty strange. And the bottom line is that we had so few votes in the Parliament that there has been no occasion in the last 2 decades when we've managed to overturn an EU law proposed by the EU Commission. Our votes in the EU Parliament were useless.       

You are one of the people who post entirely misleading posts about the EU.
1. The commission is not all powerful. They do have a responsibility to see that EU rules, regs and Laws are followed BUT, IT HAS NO POWER TO PASS ANY rules, regs or laws. It can only put forward suggested changes or propositions, which are then scrutinized by the EU Committee (not the Commission) where if areas of the proposition are considered not acceptable it can be returned to the Commission, repeatedly if necessary, before passing it to the EU Parliament for acceptance. IIRC. some propositions have been kicked into the long grass in the past.
2. The commission is made up from head of governments or head of parliaments of EU member states (all elected individuals in their own right). Its members also have to be accepted by the EU Committee and the EU Parliament.
3. The idea that it avoids scrutiny, behind closed doors, is a nonsense exaggeration of normal procedures. That is plainly obvious because everything they put forward is doubly scrutinised by elected bodies.
Yes, a shining example of representative democracy, and despite the often very misleading comments and accusations put out against the EU I fully endorse their honesty and their future aims for a United Europe.

What? They regulate everything that is saleable in the single market. There needs to be common standards.

This is an interesting article. It points out how some member states 'gold-plate' EU regulations and then blame the EU for overregulation: mycountryeurope.com/politics/european-union/gold-plating-regulate-blame-brussels/