In message , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:03:49 +0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

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.

No it isn't. The foreigner in the UK is likely to get much better
benefits from the state than the Brit in a foreign land.

They will get the local rate. To do otherwise would be illegal.

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.

I don't think that is actually true but since I have never been in the
situation where I have needed state aid from a foreign power I won't
argue the point.

It's one of the most basic tenets of the EU that a state cannot treat a
national differently to a national of another EU state, with the
exception of a few specific cases - mainly national security related.

Free movement of people, remember? Treaty of Rome, 1957. In place when we
joined the EEC in 1975.

The perceived problem comes in the UK having, for example, one of the
very best and most generous health systems anywhere. Most other EU
countries, health is not free at the point of provision. So should the UK
remove or restrict that (for all, remember)?
Precisely the points that now need to be reviewed in a referendum on
whether we do or do not wish to be part of the EU as it exists today,
not as it was in 1975 I'm willing to give Cameron or whoever a couple
of years to see what changes if any can be achieved by negotiation.
--
bert