On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:20:08 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the
EU is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it
was the exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a
"common market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes
a mockery of the whole concept.

But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict
benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same
situation in the foreigner's country of origin.

That's exactly what happens.

It's a very simple concept.

Somebody in country X gets treated exactly the same, whether they're
a "local" or originally from another EU country.

So, yes, a Brit in country X DOES get treated exactly the same as a
local.

That's the exact opposite of what Roger just said.

No, it really isn't. Roger called for equality of treatment. That's
equality of treatment.

"restrict benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the
same situation in the foreigner's country of origin". That's exactly what
happens. The recipient of a benefit gets the rate paid locally. Just the
same as a Brit would get in the other country.

Of course, what Roger might have _meant_ is that somebody who happens to
be British should be entitled to the full British whack wherever in the
EU they happen to live...? After all, they're British, dammit, so
inherently superior.

****ing hell, just watch Europe get tipped upside-down in the rush to
move around. All those Scandis on high benefits'd be straight to the
cheap-to-live warm countries, followed straight away by half of Britain.
Which, of course, would leave **** all "locals" to fill jobs here.