The queen has no power at all over parliament only the capacity to dissolve on the request of the people.
Then it goes back to government and a vote. The queen is a useless benefit scrounger just like her off spring.
The Queen has the final approval on all acts of Parliament, admittedly no act has been refused by the monarch for over 300 years but it's still a potential further check. It would almost certainly cause a constitutional crisis were the power to be used but if the monarch felt strongly enough about an act of Parliament to veto it then we've got pretty big problems anyway.
The Queen is also one of the most respected international diplomatic figures who gives us a lot of influence outside of our elected officials. You don't have to like the concept of a monarchy but your description of her as a benefit scrounger suggests you don't appreciate the role our monarch plays in the democratic and legislative process. However this is all well off topic by now since this isn't a referendum on who should be head of state and what they have to do in that role.
So 35% of the time we are forced to take regulations and rules or quotas we don't want, but that's okay because we are on the winning side 65% of the time.
Thats a fundamental flaw in the whole thing, We should choice what's best for us and leave the ****
I'm not convinced that we'd necessarily get what we wanted 100% of the time or even just a significantly higher percentage of the time than the current 65% (assumed the figure is correct for the sake of argument) were we to be outside of the EU. It's also worth considering that in terms of influence and likelihood of success the UK has a number of MEPs from UKIP who often either don't vote, don't play nicely with others or simply vote against the groups that are the closest approximation to their political leanings - in such situations it doesn't seem entirely surprising if the UK doesn't always get what we want.
I'd also have to wonder how realistic "what we want" is at times (e.g. if the UK demands something that benefits us only for the sake of political point scoring then is that reasonable or could/should an alternative be found that benefits more) and how often the UK manages to secure compromises either at that point or for further down the line.
UK is the most outvoted, sure we still 'win' 65% of the time, doesn't change that statistic.
The UK actually has no representation in the majority EU parliament party at the moment because the Conservatives refuse to join it, and started a smaller conservative group instead.
Snipped for space.
Do you happen to know which group do UKIP fit into? And how often do they a) vote and b) vote for what the "UK" wants? I'm only asking because if we're going to complain about not getting what we want we should consider whether our elected representatives are actually taking part in the process sufficiently to give us a chance to get what we want.
