In message , Jethro_uk
writes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:11:33 +0000, Adrian wrote:

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)?

The problem the Tories will face if we do leave the EU (which I can't see
happening) will be explaining to the public how we left the EU to protect
our free health service which they will want to charge us for.
Staying in the EU may well prove to be the bigger threat to the NHS as
we know it as Europe is quite happy to include opening up our health
market to international competition as part of current trade
negotiations.
--
bert