Its a bit like trying to prove a null hypothesis - it cant be done, you can only disprove a positive one - while its perfectly legitimate to use logic to expect that more rules equal greater safety, when the information to support the case shows the opposite, you need to examine the logic of the assumption.
Taking away the restrictions probably wont improve safety (although its possible they could), so youre right, it doesnt necessarily follow, but I'm not sure if anyones claimed that withdrawing all restrictions will reduce the electrocution rate - it just seems that prima facie, the restrictions have offered us no advantage for safety compared to our peers (similarly the US gets no benefit from their 110v experiment - the extra current more than makes up for the voltage, particularly in house fires).
The classic example in this thread (the one you couldnt kill with a stick), is that even running your own cables for the sparky to connect and check is illegal - LOL that ones funny, especially considering you can change an appliance plug! dont we all love beaurocracy!