Hehe when you're losing an arguement you don't half whine! "Y
ou just don't understand!" 
No need to blame yourself.
I absolutely do blame myself - it's not a complex concept, yet clearly I've been unable to simplify it enough.
Your point is, we are sovereign, the UK can re-vote on any mistakes it make. Thus you would back a second referendum on Brexit?
Absolutely. I think these things should always be revisited over the course of a normal referendum span - usually that's around 20 years.
I hate to sound like you, but you have missed the point here. It's an arguement for pragmatism over blind principle: if the EU controls laws that we would not change anyway, what is it we are missing? We would not change the working time directive because forcing people to work more than 48 hours a week without consent would never get votes in a democracy. And most people would also find it unreasonable. So although we can actually influence Europe (and the working time directive we changed to suit us if I recall plus we have a veto on new laws we don't like?) we are not missing anything. No we can't change free mobile phone roaming laws. But who would apart from mobile phone companies? Same applies to air polution laws. What you are missing is eu laws are not "really bad for all of us" as you put it.
We absolutely would change the WTD. Our government fought incredibly hard against it and have done ever since. The only way those sneaky clams could get it past us in the first place was to relabel it as a H&S issue so as to circumvent our veto. Again and again, the EU has proven that an individual country (even one with a veto) can do nothing once the Borg has started.
Having worked with MPs at the time of the Solvent Emissions Directive coming into law, I can absolutely tell you that we would no longer be enforcing that under a Conservative government. In the direct words of a very senior and influential Conservative, it's an "...utterly pointless bag of clam." I won't betray that person by naming them but it's a position much of the party agrees with. My work on that started with the Labour party at the time and any of them who had studied it in detail were of the same opinion.
I don't believe we would be harmonising tax regulation, we certainly wouldn't (rightly or wrongly) have freedom of movement, and I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be applying any of the EU standards to the products and services traded elsewhere around the world.
This government would not have accepted the Lisbon treaty and would certainly be rescinding our vote towards it if we were able to.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if you wanted to go through all of the EU legislation you'd find plenty there that a Conservative government would rescind.
I'll try one more time to explain why the WTD is bad but I'd really appreciate it if you read what I write this time and not what your straw man is saying. I don't want to force my staff to work over 48 hours every week, in fact, I don't want to force anyone to do overtime. What I do need is for the skilled part of my workforce to be flexible. What I can't do (because of the WTD) is only train up and promote those who are flexible, and I can't replace inflexible staff with them. That means I'm not able to maximise the efficient of my workforce.
There is a big difference between changing legislation and giving one industry 5% off its tax bill. Yet I would suggest that if we really wanted to, there are ways for us to support an industry whilst in the EU (as you said changing legislation for example or some kind of rebate or investment rebate, see SEIS etc). Being able to trade freely is worth not having complete freedom to cut tax for one industry. Or was Margaret Thatcher wrong when she backed this continent wide free trading setup, which has seen the UK go from broke to prosperous?
Thatcher didn't back anything like the current EU setup - I'll assume you're too young to have known that. I'll also assume that, for the same reason, you didn't experience the Labour government and trades unions that were crippling the country. It was Thatcher ridding us of them that started our upward trajectory, not EU bureaucracy.
You mentioned selling services to the US, I just asked for exmaples. Probably has gone over my head. I take your point re. bespoke UK trade deal. Fair point. It is the price we pay. But is it offset by the EUs weight to negotiate good deals? Obviously all nations want access to the EUs 550m consumers, and will normally cut better deals to access such a large market. It makes us less agile, but then trade deals are not quick things to broker are they? They take years to put in place, and smaller nations tend to be lower down the pecking order for obvious reasons. Then there is the power of trade regulation to sort your own out. The EU has clought to bully and manipulate in its favour, not sure we do.
The EU bullies and forces in favour of those that matter to it - Germany, France and sometimes Italy. I firmly believe that deals tailored to fit perfectly with a fairly large nation will be better deals than one size fits all ones with larger nations. What we gain in bargaining power, we lose in the deals having to suit Bulgaria as much as they do the UK.
Yes I think Sony would have left anyway. The cost of moving their European HQ to Amsterdam would have been significant. But with all else equal, apart from Brexit, they chose to be in the EU. To have unrestricted access to those 500m people.
The logical extension of your assertion that they require unrestricted access is that without moving to the EU they will have restricted access. You'll need to show that there will be restrictions and that they couldn't be balanced with something as simple as tax cuts for your case to hold water.
That is why they were in London. Pre-Brexit we didn't have to bribe companies to be here. They came of their own accord.
That's a somewhat naive point of view if you don't mind me pointing that out. All countries are constantly bribing and cajoling businesses to settle within their borders. The EU works hard at trying to stop that - in the next few years Ireland and Luxembourg are likely to suffer heavily from such work.
But don't think for a second that we didn't have to convince businesses to choose us in the past, because we did.
