Tony Blair would make a perfect EU president. He's as morally bankrupt as the European project has become.

By Ian Dunt

It must be the dull monotony of the Brown years. For some reason we are harking back to Tony Blair, and his empty, reassuring smile. Only the national decline of the Brown years explains it.

It's foolish to deny the frisson of satisfaction we got watching a British prime minister command the globe as Blair did, even when his motivation was entirely disgraceful. He was charismatic, and we enjoyed the face of Britain he portrayed overseas - confident, trustworthy and influential.

But Blair holding the EU presidency would be a disaster for Britain, for Europe and the world. Of the two big issues of our time - the economy and the 'war on terror' - Blair got it dead wrong.

He helped instigate the most disastrous foreign policy blunder of recent years. Thousands lie dead because of the decision to support America's war in Iraq. The region lies destabilised. Even now, as Afghanistan and Pakistan begin to blend into a region of horrible possibilities, the effects of this gross, arrogant misjudgment threaten to engulf us all. Without Blair's support, America could not have internationalised its support, and the entire project may have turned out differently.

Have we really forgotten this took place? The families of British troops who died to satisfy the insane motivations of American neo-conservatives haven't forgotten. The families of those killed in Iraq have not forgotten. Those who care about international law or the principle that going to war should only ever be a last resort have not forgotten. Iraq is the kind of miscalculation which should terminate the political careers of anyone who had a part in it.

At home, Blair backed an economic model we can now see is made of long words and nothingness. Britain is in the longest recession of its history, and refuses to pull out of it, not least because our economy was reduced to financial services, services which we now see for what they are - dust built on air. The rich got richer. The poor stayed poor. The overwhelming mission of Labour was eradicated and rewritten. Thatcherism dominated the political agenda. Britain's politics was robbed of any principle, any political belief, by a government that dedicated itself to triangulation and strategy rather than argument and politics.

And now, insanely, some people - including the foreign secretary and the prime minister, as well as a few figures on the continent - are arguing he would make a suitable president of Europe.

The motivation from Europe is clear. Blair is well loved in America and he remains an influential international figure. His presidency would give the EU a vastly improved status in Washington, and help it become a key global player. That old question of who to call when you need to talk to Europe would be resolved in a photogenic way. This thinking has revealed the nature of the post already. This is about power and influence, not managerial technique or chairmanship.

But why have a EU president who has already proved he will sacrifice anything in the name of supporting America? After all, he sacrificed Britain's national interest for America's when he was prime minister. Why would he stop now?

There was once a left-wing belief in an EU that would stand up to America. That has now been shown to be nonsense. The bare suggestion he should be made president show that hopeful sentiment to be naive at best.

For Labour, his presidency gives it international leverage, and a rock to beat the Tories with once they form a government. That isn't really a viewpoint. It's a strategy. It's designed to limit Tory damage to the European project.

The Tory policy on Europe has indeed been devoid of ethical concerns. There are many ways to get out of Lisbon without teaming up with homophobes and fascist worshipers. But to try to derail a future Tory administration's Europe policy by pushing for Blair's presidency is a disgraceful manoeuvre from a party that went back on its commitment for a referendum and has consistently failed to put the European project it so believes in to the public vote.

The mere fact Blair's presidency is mentioned should be considered a laughable stain on our moral conscience as a nation. In any sane world, he would be on trial for war crimes. In any sane world, he would be held in disrepute for failing to pursue Britain's interests, not feted as the leader of a continent.

But then the EU has become so morally bankrupt - so devoid of political principle - that in a way Blair makes an ideal candidate.

Any organisation that forces members to vote over and over again until they accept what it wants to do, and which merely renames that which voters have clearly shown they oppose, clearly has no moral qualms left. Perhaps Blair will fit in there after all.