With great power comes great responsibility, Voltaire said and it’s a shame that French president Nicolas Sarkozy didn’t think of reminding those words to British Prime Minister David Cameron at Friday’s summit. After what happened in Brussels, the reactions were predictable: the British public were split with a heavy majority backing David Cameron (despite his statement that seems something taken out of a bad sitcom) and his populist decision. Opposite that, the rest of Europe called the United Kingdom a bunch of hypocrites.

Personally, I found more interesting to see what British Foreign Secretary William Hague had to say. His statement, debatable as it is, makes more sense and sounds more mature that the spoiled brat-like statement of David Cameron. But the question we must ask is, were the British right to snub the new treaty? To that end, let’s ask some more detailed questions.

1. Whose fault is it?

We cannot say that fault is equally shared between all the countries of the European Union. Sure, we can say that they all happily turned a blind eye as the national limits on deficit and inflation were broken by each and every country (ok, save a couple of Nordic countries, as well as Poland and Switzerland, who fought heroically). Thing is, the balance of power in the European Union falls towards the old powers, France, Germany and Italy, with a counterweight formed by the Nordic countries. But they stood and watched the debt mounting, turned a blind eye to the heavy borrowing and enjoyed the benefits of the euro without enforcing the safeguards.
Sure, it’s true that pointing fingers is useless now, but it has to be mentioned because the guilty suffer a heavy handicap in credibility which can affect the implementation of a solution.

2. Is United Kingdom right to snub the new treaty?

Let’s split that in two: are they entitled to the snubbing? and is it in their best interest?

3. Is the United Kingdom entitled to snub the treaty on account of sovereignty?

Of course. Accepting the limitations is, in effect, equivalent to accepting to give away part of the national sovereignty. For the full members of the European Union, however, this comes without saying, it’s something they agreed on when they joined. United Kingdom, however, stood on the sidelines (after having aptly secured a right to veto, I’ve never understood why the other agreed to this, since the UK kept away from the common interests). Therefore, the United Kingdom got the benefits of being in the European Economic Area but without the responsibilities of an Eurozone country or a full European Union member. With a strong, independent currency and an aptly managed economy that not long ago could compete with Germany, the United Kingdom got a good deal in keeping independence.
Moreover, given the current circumstances, why would the United Kingdom agree to give up parts of its sovereignty to the same people that stood by and allowed the current crisis to unfold? That would be madness.

4. Is it in United Kingdom’s best interest to snub the new treaty?

This is a definite no. The United Kingdom’s economy is heavily dependent on a strong euro that would allow Europe to consume British goods, while enjoying the lack of custom duties within the European Economic Area. To this end, it would be in Britain’s interest to help the euro. Worst case scenario, Britain could allow the pound to fall a bit, but I doubt the Brits would enjoy having their own purchasing power slashed overnight. Moreover, snubbing a 26-to-1 vote in favor of the new treaty means that the EEA might just start thinking about letting the United Kingdom go of the European Economic Area, or at least work it out to slow down trading towards Britain. And why not? The United Kingdom itself is not such a large market for the European Union. EEA countries sell better to developing countries while the UK prefers to trade with the US. Given the extraordinary circumstances of the crisis, losing the UK is still a lesser evil.

5. Is there no middle way?

There could be one, but impractical. The European Union could benefit greatly from having the United Kingdom on board. A stronger currency to keep the euro afloat, a partner market, a contributor to the European Central Bank, etc. In turn the United Kingdom gets to continue its privileged trading, continues to sell within the EEA unchecked and without fears that a failing euro could stop people from buying British goods.
On the other hand, a dissenting United Kingdom harms the credibility of the EEA and scares the markets. It causes instability and instability in time of crisis is playing with fire near the powder keg. The United Kingdom is a wildcard in an otherwise (fairly) united deck and you can’t play the last hand with a wildcard. This can’t be left to the whims of one country.

Bottom line is: a group (society) can work only as long as its members are willing to work together. This applies to any community, be it one made from individual people or one made from countries on an international level. The challenges are different but the principle is identical. The Euro will work or fail depending on how those using it play. Are they going to go crazy on their budgets with no regard for the future (like Greece)? Are they going to develop in a smart, profitable way (like Germany)? All up to them.

And lastly: what good is sovereignty if you can’t manage your country? If you can’t build an environment where your people can live safely, comfortably and productively, then isn’t it better to leave the leadership to those who can? France and Germany are not perfect, but they are better at this than most countries in the world. The United Kingdom too. But for Romania and Greece (for example), this doesn’t work and they need to be pushed and threatened to make even decision that plain common sense dictates as correct.