Thomas Jefferson was furious. News had reached him in Paris that John Adams had proposed an elaborate styling for George Washington. The first chief executive would be known as “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties”. Jefferson thought this “superlatively ridiculous” and profoundly dangerous. Fortunately, Congress concurred. Washington would be called plain “Mr President”.

Politicians have always understood that when it comes to political power, formal rules and constitutions aren’t all that matter. Personalities, styling, precedents; all these things help to create an office and give it weight. And they are never more important than when choosing the first occupant of a post.

How, then, should this understanding inform the selection of the first president of the European Council? There is a good case to be made for a European president able to personify the Union and represent it forcefully in international meetings; someone who can, in the vogue phrase, “stop the traffic” in Washington and be taken seriously in Beijing.

Yet there are obvious costs to having such a figure, as well as obvious benefits. A forceful, charismatic president would have his or her own agenda, which would not necessarily be ours. Britain’s influence as one of a group of countries might sometimes be enhanced, but as a sovereign power it would be diminished. And the political influence of a big figure as president would strengthen the European centre against its members, often in ways people in this country might regret or even resent.

If, therefore, a charismatic, forceful international statesman is chosen as Europe’s first president, a political choice will have been made and a precedent set. Europe will have decided that the benefits outweigh the costs and the president will henceforth be much more than a person who chairs the Council of Ministers more effectively than the rolling chairman.

It was open to governments of Europe, including ours, to have made the case for this sort of president. They could have argued that the advantages were irresistible. They chose not to. In order to avoid consulting the voters, in country after country the public was informed that the Lisbon treaty was a mere “tidying up exercise” designed to allow an expanded European Union to operate. The Council needed a chairman, because rotation through so many countries wouldn’t work. There was nothing of constitutional importance for anyone to worry about.

Having made this argument and legislated on this basis, it is not now open to European leaders to appoint a “traffic-stopping” president rather than a smooth chairman. Appointing the first president of the Council creates a vital precedent and such a precedent must be set in accordance with the behaviour and assurances made by leaders during the ratification process.

All of this means that the leaders of Europe should not appoint Tony Blair. The Times supported Mr Blair in two general elections and remains impressed by him. He is a person of great stature and impressive leadership qualities. He is also a free trader and an Atlanticist. Yet his skills, and his conception of the job, make him suitable only for the version of the presidency that was disavowed. Indeed, those supporting his candidacy have been clear that one of the reasons for advancing his name is securing a more ambitious presidency.

They could have had one, if they had made the case for it and won public support. Since they did not, they must now appoint an effective chairman. Jan Peter Balkenende?