One senior European politician said angrily that British Prime Minister David Cameron was “like a man who comes to a wife-swapping party without his wife,” and there was some truth in that.
Britain does not even use the euro currency, shared by 17 of the 27 EU members, but Mr Cameron insisted on being part of the discussion in Brussels about how to save it. And in the end, he vetoed the solution that all the others had agreed on.
But, in fact, they were all barking up the wrong tree: the financial crisis over the euro will roll on, and the collapse of the common EU currency continues to be a real possibility. What the summit actually showed was how divided, distracted and deluded Europe’s leaders still are.
Mr Cameron went to Brussels knowing that his partners intended to come up with a treaty that would enshrine new financial rules for EU members, in order to reassure the “markets”, which have been demanding higher and higher interest rates to roll over the debts of EU members.
He also knew that the nationalistic, “europhobe” faction in his own Conservative Party would never vote for such a treaty.
They want out of the EU, not further in. The only way out of Mr Cameron’s dilemma, therefore, was to make sure that there would not be such a treaty. His stated reason for vetoing it was to avoid more stringent regulation, and possibly taxation, of the London financial markets, but his real reason was naked self-interest: a new treaty would split his own party and probably destroy his government.
The other EU members feigned great anger at this, but some of them were secretly quite grateful for Mr Cameron’s bad behaviour.
They agreed to adopt the same rules anyway, but to do it outside the legal framework of the EU in order to get around the veto.
This had two great advantages: it meant that no referendums would be necessary - and if these measures failed to reassure the markets, they could blame Britain.
What were these fabulous new measures? They were all about balanced budgets in the eurozone countries, which would face sanctions if they let their budget deficit exceed 3 per cent of GDP.
These are exactly the steps that will be needed if the euro is to have a long-term future: it cannot survive if the countries using it do not have a unified fiscal regime.
But the markets don’t give a damn about the long-term future of the euro, they just want to know for sure that they will get back the money they lend and, until they have that assurance, they will demand exorbitant interest rates.
The bigger EU governments are using the crisis as a pretext to force through centralising measures that they have long wanted to impose on the weaker economies. But they are still not doing what the markets want, which is to take responsibility for the weaker countries’ debts.
It’s not just Mr Cameron who is putting his political interests above the interests of a broader European community.
So is German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who refuses to allow the EU to honour the debts of the weaker members.
That’s the only thing that will calm the markets, but Ms Merkel’s voters are fiercely opposed to hard-working, thrifty Germans covering the debts of lazy, spendthrift Greeks and Italians (as many of them would put it).
But don’t worry: interminably is not the same as forever. Sooner or later there will be a real crash, and all these people will be duly punished for their fecklessness.
Unfortunately, everybody else in the EU will be punished, too.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Email a friend