While your point that the UK has in some instances raised it's standards following EU directives is fair, referring the enclosures act of the eighteenth century does make you seem somewhat desperate.
Also, suggesting that right to a fair trial is somehow something we have courtesy of the EU is rubbish, ignoring as it does several hundred years of progress in equality before the law.
Most of your points in fact were addressed to some (often a large) degree before the UK even joined the EEC (*cough*clean air act 1956 *cough* as you might say; sick pay I believe originated from the National Insurance element of the welfare state set up post WW2, becoming statutory sick pay in 1983; minimum wage was brought in by Blair as an electoral promise, not an EU directive), and the improvements since we joined the EEC / the formation of the EU reflect improvements in science (hard to have regulations governing PM10 and PM2.5 until you can actually detect particles this size), and the continued improvement in standards that would have occurred with or without the EEC/EC/EU.
The previous post questioning why Britain must 'always' lower it's standards was clearly incorrect, but it is clear that EU rules/directives are based on compromises across 28 states, and that in some cases, EU standards are below UK standards. In many cases, the UK regulations are therefore more stringent than the EU directive (we had this discussion about 'gold plating' quite recently), so in fact it seems rare that the UK lowers it's standards. But it is also rare that the UK raises its standards due to the EU.