Perhaps a Brexiteer here could explain?
“It is all this stuff about 'regulatory divergence' which is so chilling. Almost nobody who is sane is antagonistic to the single market and customs union - these massively benefit the UK and all the other countries dotted around outside the EU weep to imagine how their economies would be improved by this access. Brexit people always point to Spain and Greece as counter-examples, but even in these cases they are staggeringly wealthier societies than they were a couple of generations back.
If we really are so self-hating that we want to stop having any further say in the running of our continent then OK let's leave. It's stupid, but whatever. We can leave while staying in the SM and CU.
All the Labour supporters who are in favour of Brexit must ask themselves what it is about 'regulatory divergence' which is so attractive to those in the Tory party frantic to get us out, with 'no deal' if need be. What do the financial backers of Johnson, Cummings, the ERG, etc think is so terrific about the opportunity to 'diverge'?
It doesn't matter if as a Labour MP you don't like the EU - if you vote with Johnson you are voting to betray your constituents as surely as if you directly voted to crash worker rights. In a way this is built into wanting to leave: the 'friction' and damage created by not being in the SM and CU puts all UK exports at a clear disadvantage. So how do you improve your costs? Not, I would imagine, by much lower executive pay, but by squidging working conditions.
This is so blooming obvious I don't see why on Earth people like Frank Field even give Brexit the time of day.”