In European Union politics, the British capacity for plucking defeat from the jaws of victory is impressive. Another instance was provided at the end of last week (18 February) when José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, visited London. British government sources briefed journalists that Prime Minister David Cameron had urged Barroso to relax the foreign-language requirements for recruitment to the EU institutions. The numbers of applicants from Britain are so low that they should be given special dispensation from being tested in a language other than English, Barroso was told.

Barroso listened sympathetically, but promised nothing. He is in no position to offer concessions because the staff regulation that governs recruitment to the EU institutions is EU law passed by the member states and the European Parliament. What the UK government is trying to get round are the inconvenient provisions in that regulation that “no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific member state” and that an applicant has to produce “evidence of a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Communities and of a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of his duties”. (A further inconvenience is that before an official can be promoted he or she must demonstrate ability in a third language.)

The British government’s lobbying campaign is both misplaced and misguided. It is misplaced because the Commission – and more generally the EU – is being blamed for the failings of the British educational system. It is not the fault of the EU that so many Britons lack the ability to read or write in another European language. That is a failing of British schools and universities and of successive governments that attached little importance to the study of foreign languages but were so prescriptive about other academic subjects that languages were squeezed from the curriculum. Universities, bowing in turn to their market place, have relaxed their entrance requirements.

Because the problem is structural, it will take a long time to remedy. Cameron is right, therefore, to be worried about its effects on things like recruitment to the EU institutions, but his government is going about things in the wrong way.

It needs to recognise that languages, although a convenient scapegoat, are not the only reason why applications to join the EU institutions have dropped off. In Britain, a career in public service is not afforded the same esteem that it is given in, say, France or Spain. And within the UK’s civil service, time spent working on EU matters is no longer as helpful to one’s career as it once was. Those who contemplate a secondment to the EU institutions worry that they will not be welcomed back, and that the experience that they gain will not be valued. The successive waves of Euroscepticism or Euro-cynicism or indifference or neglect have had their effect. Unless the British government changes those prevailing attitudes, it is unlikely to redress the fall-off in applications to work in the EU institutions.

The UK’s plea for special treatment is not just misguided because it is unwinnable (France, Germany, Italy and Spain are most unlikely to contemplate admitting monoglots). It is also misguided because it exaggerates the importance of languages. It sends a message to would-be applicants that the EU’s language demands are insuperable. They are not: the bar is set low (too low, some would say). The British have a collective problem of self-belief about learning languages and Cameron has accentuated the problem instead of making light of it. Applicants should be being told that some well-placed investment in intensive language study will work wonders. That is probably what is happening in every other EU member state.

What makes the plea for special treatment especially silly is that the English (and Irish) do enjoy a huge advantage in the EU institutions. Their first language (exempting the minority Gaelic-speaking Irish) has become the dominant language of the EU institutions. The British are on the winning side – but they insist on losing.