At the very least there are 28,063 citizens of the European Union who will be dismayed at the revelation by Glenys Kinnock that the British government is championing Tony Blair as the first long-term president of the European council.

That is the number of people who have signed an online petition, run in recent weeks to protest against the idea that Blair would be a suitable person to preside over the affairs of the EU. In practice, opposition to Blair's appointment goes far wider and deeper than is reflected in the poll. However, Lady Kinnock is quoted as saying:

Blair is seen by many as someone who has the strength of character, the stature. People know who he is, and he would be someone who would have this role and step into it with a lot of respect and I think would be generally welcomed.

It's tempting to say in response that everything in those two sentences is wrong – even the punctuation.

It is true that when Blair was elected prime minister in 1997 he was regarded in the European Union as worthy of great hope and expectation. Much of this had to do with the sheer relief of seeing the back of an obsessively narrow-minded, anti-European Tory government. He also talked a good talk when it came to proclaiming his pro-European credentials.

However, at first slowly and then very rapidly Blair's standing throughout the EU went into decline as it emerged that under his government Britain remained as negative, carping and footdragging as his Tory predecessors. Even right-of-centre EU governments viewed his government's attempts to block progressive legislation on workers' rights and other innovative social policies with disbelief.

What finally shattered the European love affair with Blair was, of course, the Iraq war. Even mainstream EU political leaders, not given to public criticism of United States policy were appalled at the subservience of Blair and his government to the George Bush strategy on combating the "axis of evil". It is no exaggeration to say that in most of the European chancelleries there are deep-seated convictions that Blair gave his commitment to back Bush in launching war in Iraq long before troops were dispatched and after it emerged there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Blair's record since then has failed to win him more European admirers – perhaps the sole remaining example being his friend and Iraq war ally, the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. In addition, Blair's prestigious-sounding role in seeking to broker a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians seems to have produced little in the way of concrete results.

There has been little or no talk about who should be the president/chair of the European council since the initial Irish "No" to the Lisbon treaty. But it now appears that there will be an Irish "Yes" to the treaty in October following "clarification" of the impact (or rather "non-impact") of the treaty on Irish concerns about abortion, taxation and other issues. So the issue has become hot again.

Even if New Labour attaches its flag to the Blair cause, it is most unlikely to succeed. Apart from Berlusconi, all Blair's other pro-Iraq war allies have been kicked out of office. It is true that the French president initially appeared to support Blair's candidacy. But the volatile Sarkozy now appears to have had a change of heart. Meanwhile even among new EU member states in central and eastern Europe, Blair's standing has diminished, following the arrogant fashion in which the UK EU presidency of 2006 dealt with their need for budget support.

So who might be appointed in his place? Two names are in circulation – both social democrats but from different parts of Europe: the former Finnish prime minister Paavo Lipponen and Felipe Gonzales, the former Spanish premier. Their candidacies have to be seen in the context of the likely reappointment of the present lacklustre Portuguese conservative Jose Manuel Barroso as president of the commission. This leaves the important post of EU "foreign minister" to be filled – maybe by a French candidate.

So why, against these odds, would the Brown government go public in backing a candidate who is far from being the bookies' favourite? Perhaps it is a bargaining chip to get a Brit appointed to a serious post in the new commission, possibly being in charge of the single market, or competition policy. Still, it will leave Blair with more time for his lucrative career as an after-dinner speaker.