AMONG millions of Europeans, the euro-zone crisis inspires stomach-turning fear. Among some British Conservatives, it provokes glee. On September 12th more than 100 Tory MPs squeezed into the Thatcher Room of the Palace of Westminster and agreed that the crisis is a “golden opportunity”: a chance to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the European Union.

Some were the usual Eurosceptic suspects, meaning the 30 or so hardliners who (in the words of one MP) yearn to “fuck Europe while it's in trouble”. But the turnout was broader than that, in part thanks to the foreign secretary, William Hague, who announced that attendance would not be “career suicide”. Though David Cameron's government is wary of revisiting old rows over Europe, ministers know that the “golden opportunity” thesis is mainstream Tory thinking.

Now, the search is on for wheezes that might transform dislike of Europe into concrete victories. The Thatcher Room gathering heard calls to replace “ever closer union” in EU treaties with “localism”, ie a commitment to decentralise powers. George Eustice, the young MP who chaired the meeting, says national parliaments across Europe are questioning the hoarding of powers in Brussels, and claims: “Now is the moment for British leadership.”

The large 2010 intake of Tory MPs is especially hostile to Europe. Five ambitious newbies this week published a book, “After the Coalition”, urging the government to repatriate powers covering criminal law, social policy, financial regulation, farming and fisheries. “The Future of Conservatism”, a rival book by 26 right-wingers led by David Davis, a former leadership contender, demands a referendum on Britain's relations with Europe. On the right, the assumption is that the British public would prefer a loose trading association with the EU, such as Switzerland or Norway enjoy.

For boldness, the palm goes to John Redwood, a former cabinet minister. He proposes a grand bargain: swap Britain's veto over European integration for the right to opt out of any EU policy area. Other governments would agree, predicts Mr Redwood, because Britain is the only large country likely to use its veto when euro-zone rescue efforts require sanctifying by EU treaty changes (which must be ratified by all 27 members).

The cacophony of ideas can seem overwhelming. In fact, all fit into two broad schools of thought. The first amounts to a hunch that—by holding the euro zone to ransom—Britain can be a free rider on Europe's single market. This is variously dressed up with talk of the “Swiss model” or of repatriating powers. But the basic idea is to access EU markets without paying EU regulatory costs.

The second school of thought thinks even low-cost membership of the single market is a bad deal. Britain should leave the club, such ultrasceptics growl: world trade rules would guarantee tariff-free access to EU economies. And if trade rules fail, well, Britain buys more from the rest of the EU than vice versa, so it is in Europe's interests not to raise barriers to trade. Anyway, Europe is in sclerotic decline, they scoff: the future lies in emerging markets.

The two camps have common features. They share a single, unifying suspicion: that their coalition partners, the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, may yet block moves to bind the wounded Euro-Leviathan. And both sets of plans are based on wishful thinking.

There is no golden opportunity

Europe is not crying out for British leadership. Britain, perched on the sidelines as the euro-zone house blazes, has made itself mostly irrelevant. If Britain overbids on its demands, it would move from irrelevance to isolation (and face calls to start paying towards euro-zone bail-outs). Bid as high as Mr Redwood suggests, and the 17 euro-zone countries would simply draw up a non-EU treaty excluding Britain.

Tories misunderstand the Swiss-EU deal: Switzerland gets to be a free rider because it is small. And because it is small, Switzerland's absence does not affect the nature of the single market. Britain would never be allowed the same deal—and British withdrawal from Europe's core would by itself skew the project away from liberalism towards protectionism.

Europe's single-market project was, from the outset, a trade-off between liberal and statist forces. The statists (led by countries such as France) would reject the single market if it allowed members to embark on what they would consider a race to the bottom on green or labour-market standards. Euro-zone integration is already straining the status quo. On September 14th it emerged that Britain is to launch an unprecedented legal battle with the European Central Bank over new rules that may force a giant derivatives clearing house to move from London to the euro zone.

Even Britain's trade deficit with Europe is a red herring. Relative scale matters: Rhode Island runs a trade deficit with the other 49 American states but does not dictate terms to them. As for emerging markets replacing the EU soon: Britain exports more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China together.

Finally, grumbling about the Lib Dems is overblown. It is other EU countries that will stop Britain free riding, not the Lib Dems. And if the euro zone turns into a superstate, most Lib Dems would not want Britain to follow.

Still, Eurosceptics are right about one big thing. Europe's tectonic plates are moving, and Britain's vital interests are in play. The government should plan defensively in case a moment for horse-trading arises. But it should seek a narrow, valuable and—if timed right—achievable concession. Try a protocol giving a veto over EU financial regulation to Britain (where the lion's share of European financial business is transacted, after all). Forget blanket opt-outs that will not be granted. Europe is on fire. The moment is not golden; this is no time for glee.

Economist.com/blogs/bagehot