When the laws get too complicated and ridiculous for normal law abiding citizens to comply with they will usually stop being enforced.  Since no government will say ignore these laws but still please obey these other laws this invariably leads to anarchy or secession of better run local economies (and civil war probably since these areas will be where all the wealth and businesses will be).

A society needs some regulation. The EU as a society needs some regulation. However, the EU Mogol abuses this for some other reason: to feed itself and to grow. Enhancing the comfort of the EU society is not the only goal anymore. Feeding the Mogol is the goal of the politicians to live in their own fantasy world, like the one on the internet. The only difference is that the world of the Mogol is living on the money of other people and it is causing consequences in the real lives of real people outside the internet. Right now it is causing a considerable amount of discomfort. And this amount of discomfort is a lot higher than the amount of comfort it does create.

In order to create only comfort for the EU people, we need just a flee compared to the Mogol we have right now.

If politicians want to fantasize little rules and how people should live, they are free to do so but just among themselves and at their own expense. If not, EU people will keep on voting against the Mogol. And rightfully so. The EU is there for the people and not the other way around. First economics (understood as part of human behavior) and then politicis (understood as organising/regulating existing behavior). People telling me how I should behave are causing me discomfort.

I want comfort.

"The EU needs to be redesigned to make it possible to roll back some of the unnecessary legislation.”

They would not do that.  They would then have to enforce only the law - not enforce only provisions from which they can pick and choose while ignoring the others.

The European Union has seemingly chosen the COMECON model for its economic bloc, complete with democratic centralism, and politicians and bureaucrats who are neither democratically elected nor who understand where their tax revenues come from. I agree with David Cameron's argument that the ethos of the EU is obsolete - placing more emphasis on resolving internal disputes, rapproachment with the formerly Communist states in East-Central Europe, and enshrining the Holocaust in all areas of human discourse for eternity - rather than addressing its demographic crisis, unresolved national self-determination (e.g. Flanders, Navarre, Catalunya), and competing globally while preserving the environment. Eurocrats seek to deny Europe's cultural diversity in favour of a bland single culture in harmony with so-called "global" values, even though culture is more important to political stability and economic prosperity than organisational structures, a point driven home by Sweden and Japan who while pursuing different paths, achieved success due mostly to their homogeneity rather than system of government, tax structure, etc.