You have been writing quite a lot and I did read all. Your problem is that you assume "the EU ... proper have had some pretty dumb moments". But those laws are not dumb. They are in the interest of some mighty lobbies. That means they will not improve over time because the laws makers and the people paying those are ok with them.
From your comment: "The problem is not Direct democracy or laissez-faire. The problem is that EU laws are made by lobbyist."
Direct Democracy and laissez faire were not put forth as problems. Neither were they put forth as solutions. They were put forth simply as "two other options" for the purpose of comparison with representative democracy. There are many other possible frameworks for governance. Theocracy, for instance. The two I chose where mentioned simply to provide a point of reference to discuss the different issues a society confronts when creating a legal framework. So, based on your comment stating that the "problem is not Direct democracy or laissez-faire", I assumed you understood my comment to argue that the those where the problem, which it did not.
My comment did, however, make arguments on behalf of a representative form of governance to the effect that, it allows its citizens to engage in the process. The one form of engagement which I explicitly mentioned was lobbying, stating that lobbying, as commonly understood, entails engaging so as to guide the legislative process in a manner in which directs the process toward an end product that the lobbyist has already decided is the optimal final state of the legislation. I also made the argument that there are other activities in which non-legislators citizens could engage in activities that would not be included under the umbrella of those termed "lobbying". So, to say, "That means they will not improve over time because the laws makers and the people paying those are ok with them," you did not seem to address any of these other, non-"lobbyist" activities. And so, by not addressing them but still coming to a conclusion ("That means...") it just kinda seems like you didn't read or understand my entire comment.
But please, cherry pick which portions of my comment (which I tried to make constructive, well thought out, and upbeat) to critique, while basing at least some of your argument's authority on the fact that you're aware that I've commented elsewhere, about unrelated issues, here on HN. That's totally constructive.
