Do you only read one paragraph? I covered this, exactly:
No you didn't. German social policy has as little to do with this as Indonesian military expenditures.
Cameron is essentially stating that it is okay for the British to abuse the social safety net, but not for foreigners.
If proneness to abuse was actually the problem, the solution would not be to make it harder to abuse for foreigners only. Thus, the implication is that abuse by other EU citizens is a big enough problem to be mentioned in a list of things to be addressed lest the UK leave the EU.
Now, I can't say I know the extent of this problem, but even if it were a big problem, several other European countries have social security systems apparently less prone to abuse, which means that solving this problem is a thing the UK can do
all by itself without violating any European laws.
The chosen solution, focusing on foreigners, therefore presumably intentionally violates aspects of the EU internal market, in order to convince the xenophobes to vote to stay in the EU.
The whole thing obviously contrived such that Cameron's peers, the business and finance people, get to stay in the EU, while not having to pay as much as do the other well-to-do member states.
Note that the only place where German social policy has
anything at all to do with this, is that it is one the social safety nets that are allegedly less prone to abuse. This is no way implies that the only solution is to impose the Sozialversicherungsgesetz in the UK.
And even
if these exact policies would be the only possible solution that doesn't limit free movement in the internal market: There is nothing inherently German about these policies. How petulant and imbecilic does one have to be to reject policies on the basis that Germany enacts them as well?
