Agreed, I’d not put too, too, much weight on the World Bank and their purchasing power parity calculations but still. We’re asked a question and it’s worth trying to provide an answer:
It’s clear that the government wants to pursue radical de-regulation on everything from worker to environmental, social and financial protections. Their goal is Singapore-on-Thames where they can show contempt for international norms and standards on every imaginable issue, and depart from previously hallowed ground on matters such as the NHS. Their desired outcome is a country with a more powerful and relatively richer elite, and they are indifferent as to whether that reduces the income of all else in the country. They, at least, can be understood.
But why do so many still support Leave when it is so apparent that this agenda is so harmful to them? And I mean harmful in the sense of very obviously imposing restrictions on their well-being? What is the trade off? Where is the gain? What advantage does the pursuit of English nationalism provide that makes it worthwhile having despite it making most worse off within the country, and by international comparison?
The answer being, well, what’s so bad about Singapore on Thames?
Why wouldn’t people like to be better off?