The paradox at the heart of Britain's EU posturing The paradox of British euroscepticism was captured by two stories last week. At a summit in Brussels, David Cameron touted the kind of liberal economic reforms that Tony Blair, his predecessor but one as prime minister, used to press upon the EU. He wants to loosen up workers" rights and environmental strictures. He senses sympathy for his vision of a business-friendly Europe in two seats of real power: the European Commission and Berlin. Economic liberalisation is the main item in his vaunted project to revise the terms of British membership. At the same time, a survey by YouGov charted the full dimensions of Britain's hostility to European immigration. Fifty-five per cent of voters say the right to move anywhere in the EU is a bad thing that should be curtailed. Almost as many are happy for Britons to forfeit their freedom to live on the continent as part of the bargain. A similar number want to restrict the entry of Romanians and Bulgarians, even if it means breaking European law. Mr Cameron is wise to this mood; finding ways to limit immigration from the continent is another part of his putative renegotiation of EU membership. This, then, is the British paradox. The country resents the EU for being a social democratic force, a regulatory dead hand on markets, and has done since the 1980s when the commission was led by the integrationist Jacques Delors, and the Single European Act empowered Brussels to regulate. However, by far the most offensive part of the whole European project to the British is actually an impeccably capitalist policy: the free movement of persons. On general economic matters, Mr Cameron plays the Chicago School supply-sider at Europe's high table. But when it comes to labour markets, he turns into something like a trade union baron in his aversion to continentals undercutting British workers. This philosophical incoherence would be of merely academic interest if it did not also hamper Mr Cameron diplomatically. Were he to espouse the kind of European reform that might profit the continent generally - a deeper internal market, a crusade for competitiveness, more trade agreements with other economies - he would command an audience from Scandinavia to Poland. Instead, he offers exactly what other member states feared when he first spoke of renegotiation: a selective approach to markets and a shapeless list of demands in which the only connecting theme is narrow British interests. In Germany, where Angela Merkel was re-elected last month after actually campaigning for more intra-European migration, Mr Cameron's approach sounds like an inadvertent menace to the integrity of the internal market that he and they cherish. Especially galling is his desire to realise one of the freedoms codified in the Treaty of Rome - the free movement of services, where his country has a competitive advantage - while chipping away at a less convenient one, that of movement. If Britain's strategic aim really is to remain in the internal market while resiling from its open borders, it is asking for a privilege without precedent. Even Norway and Switzerland, which are outside the EU proper, have to respect free movement. If, on the other hand, Mr Cameron is simply doing what any pragmatic politician would do by venting the grievances of his voters, that carries its own omens. Britain has a schizophrenic take on globalisation. It is astonishingly, laudably relaxed about foreigners buying up energy companies, airports and other strategic assets. But the popular mood (and, as a result, official policy) towards its labour market is, and there really is no better word for it, protectionist. When George Osborne toured China recently, the chancellor told his hosts he would loosen visa rules to make it as easy for them to visit Britain as the continent. But this is only an issue because Britain continues to abstain from the Schengen travel zone. This is a legitimate choice for a country to make about its borders but it exposes the incompatibility of Britain's economic interests, which lie in ever greater openness, with its vein of nativism. And if this tension is acute now, imagine if the country votes to leave the EU in the planned referendum of 2017. Some free-market advocates of Brexit look forward to substituting Commonwealth migrants for unlimited European ones. But it is beyond fanciful to believe voters who resent Poles would welcome Nigerians and Indians. Eurosceptics say the EU is undemocratic. Another way of putting it is that the EU is a hedge against protectionism. It renders illegal the kind of market barriers that voters might like their governments to put up. British politicians curse France for selfishness and perfidy in European matters. But it has never pretended to like any of the market freedoms entrenched by the EU: goods, services, capital or labour. Britain talks a good game about liberalism but resents one of the four freedoms. It is a remarkable day when Paris has something to teach London about consistency in foreign policy.