The debate has already begun in Brussels over not only who would be the most suitable candidate for the job, but also over the functions the post should include -- a subject about which the Treaty itself is particularly vague. Opinions are divided between those who want a strong president that would be the EU's "face" to the world and those advocating for a more restrained role.

The difference reflects conflicting interests between big and small EU member states. Powerful nations favor a strong presidential figure who could help advance their international objectives, while smaller states -- such as those of the Benelux bloc and Austria -- fear that a powerful president would allow their larger counterparts to impose their own goals.

Small nations are also concerned about the prospect that the election of a strong president would empower the European Council at the expense of the European Commission. As a supranational institution, the Commission is seen as best-suited to advance the interests of small states, while the Council, an intergovernmental body, is considered more vulnerable to the influence of powerful nations.

Among the contenders for the post, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is considered the candidate most capable of incarnating a strong presidential figure. His track record and global "weight" set him clearly apart from the rest of the field. So if a strong figure is ultimately chosen, Blair would most likely be the man. Spain and Italy have already backed him, while French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and British Secretary for Foreign Affairs David Miliband both recently declared their public support for Blair's as-yet-undeclared candidacy.

The Germans, however, have remained noticeably silent. According to British diplomatic sources, Merkel's reluctance to clearly state her opinion is simply due to her intention to trade off Blair's presidency for key financial positions at the commission, which could involve Britain giving up one of its directorates general posts.

Nevertheless, Blair's candidacy still faces major obstacles, including lingering resentment in Europe over his support -- contrary to British and European public opinion -- for the Iraq war, as well as the likelihood that British Conservatives will win the next parliamentary elections.

Other candidates often mentioned include the current prime ministers of the Netherlands and Luxembourg -- Peter Balkenende and Jean-Claude Juncker, respectively -- and the former prime ministers of Belgium, Guy Verhofstadt, and Finland, Paavo Lipponen.

Verhofstadt, who is considered to be effective and has a better reputation than Balkenende, seems to be a favorite among those who would like to see the position filled by a competent chairman-type figure. But his federalism is not likely to appeal to British sympathies. Juncker, in an effort to boost his candidacy, is the only aspirant to have publicly declared his willingness to assume the post. However, he is seen as too "germanophile" by the French and British, which might reduce his chances.

Aside from the short-term power struggles over who will get the post, the issue has deeper implications for the EU's future. There will be substantial differences in the position's functions, depending on whether it is wielded by someone satisfied with a chairman's role, or by someone, such as Blair, that would adopt a stronger posture.

Choosing a chairman is clearly the less exciting of the two options, since it does not imply any dramatic change. The chairman's main functions would be to prepare council meetings, broker deals and provide a more coherent approach than the current system of rotating EU presidencies. Such a job description is unlikely to cause clashes with the member states, as it would not involve a reshaping of the current status quo. As such, it can be characterized as the conservative option, or the "safe bet."

However, if the Lisbon Treaty is finally approved, European leaders might be tempted to push for bolder changes. Having a simple chairman as president could be considered as too meager a result after all the efforts that went into realizing the treaty. Also, the recent Irish "yes" has created momentum that could be used to pursue a more wide-ranging restructuring.

A common assumption is that having a political heavyweight as president of the Council would give the EU more international clout and allow for greater coherence in delineating its common objectives. The option may even sound attractive to Americans, since it could provide the long-sought-after "direct line to Europe," whose absence was epitomized by Henry Kissinger's famous remark, "Who do I call if I want to call Europe?"

However, the reality may not prove that easy. Blair's election would likely raise huge expectations, not only inside Europe, but also beyond. If he is unable to deliver, disappointment could follow quickly, along with a subsequent loss of prestige for the EU as a whole, but also for the newly created post.

Should Blair indeed become the first president of the European Council, he will face a difficult decision over which role to assume. As a simple chairman, he would certainly disappoint the expectations generated by his past record, while as a powerful presidential figure, he would have to deal with the internal divergences of the EU member states. He might soon find himself bedeviled with the perhaps impossible task of presenting a common European position to the world.

For Blair, and for the EU, much will depend on whether or not European leaders decide that taking the "bold step" of electing a powerful president is worth the risk.

**Nicolas Nagle is a freelance journalist based in Brussels. He has worked for a number of Latin American news outlets and for the International Crisis Group.