Iraq war also undermines Mr Blair's claim to be a unifying force. The issue itself was divisive, pitting the governments of the European Union against each other. When the choice between Britain's relationship with America and its relationship with the rest of Europe became unfudgeable, Mr Blair chose America, which speaks volumes about his instincts.

Mr Blair rode roughshod over popular opinion across Europe, and misled people at home. He used information selectively to help persuade Cabinet and Parliament of the case for military action [Iraq]. As we say, he was a forceful advocate, sometimes stretching the facts to the utmost in order to make his case. His lawyerly persuasiveness may be useful in presenting Europe's case to the rest of the world, but it is not necessarily the ability that makes for the best chairman of summits of European leaders.

Blair for President? 'Not necessarily a good idea,' says his former adviser

Sir Stephen Wall - one of the key architects of the post of EU president - said a high-profile figure such as Mr Blair was "not necessarily a very good idea" and cast doubt on his ability to build consensus among EU leaders. A figure from a smaller state would send a "unifying signal." Above all, however, the argument against Mr Blair's appointment is that it would be undemocratic.

Research by The Independent on Sunday suggests a democratic discrepancy between voters and national leaders - who wield the votes for the new president.