Your post illustrates in passing the misconceptions which arise when the usual easy rhetoric of the 'all-powerful EU superstate' is assumed to be established fact rather than an aspiration which, as yet, is very imperfectly realised.
Sure, the treaties speak of 'ever closer union' and sure there are those within the EU who are actively working towards it. But progress towards the unified superstate is slow, and is constantly thwarted by the dogged independence of the member states (not just the UK or the Eastern Europeans) whenever their own local interests are threatened. France the victim of an all-powerful EU? C'mon...
These misconceptions were very apparent during the Brexit campaign. If you see a regulation or group of regulations coming from the EU which you particularly dislike, it's very easy to blame the EU for their adoption and see them as indicative of a loss of sovereignty. But in many if not most of the cases which were quoted by people interviewed about their reason for voting Leave, the regulation concerned was actively promoted or supported in the EU Council of Ministers by the British government of the time, sometimes even based on existing British national legislation which then went Europe-wide: and it's not surprising that the UK therefore choose not to exercise the various derogations and opt-outs open to it if it was thought to be contrary to the national interest. So far from being the helpless victim of an all-powerful superstate, the UK was flexing its own muscle in the EU and responsibility for those regulations arriving in Britain lay not with the EU but firmly with successive British governments.
Hence incidentally also, the Great Repeal Bill and the Henry VIII measures you mention will often be the repatriation of regulations which began life in the UK in the first place.
You’re welcome Winniesboy and thank you for the thoughtful insight.