But the run-up to it has passed virtually unnoticed, and the result will be forgotten in a month.
I am referring to the European elections.
Over the next few days, more than 350-million people in 27 countries will elect 736 members to the European Parliament for a five-year term. Yet there is no clearer indication of the irrelevance of the European Union (EU) to most people’s lives than the fact that fewer than half of them will actually vote. Since the first European elections in 1979, the turnout has declined from 63% to 45% in 2004, with as little as 40% predicted this time. This is an appalling reflection on the state of the EU, which proclaims itself an exemplar of the new borderless democracy, but inspires barely a flicker of interest among those whose fortunes it supposedly advances.
You could put voter apathy down to the fact that the elections do not produce a government, only coalitions of MPs, so there are none of the colourful personality clashes that spark interest in national elections. The truth is the European parliament is seen by most as an ineffective, costly group of Euro-enthusiasts whose mission in life is to meddle in national parliaments and deliver piles of useless regulation. They do not even have the right to initiate legislation. Therefore they can do no good, only bad.
In a normal democracy, the response to such a situation would be to throw the so-and-sos out and build a properly accountable democratic system, or get rid of it altogether. But none of those options is on offer. This presents European electors with a very limited choice. If you are a Euro-enthusiast, you vote as a good citizen. But if you have doubts, any vote merely endorses the existing system without reforming it. Which is why many people prefer not to vote at all. Abstention is a form of protest, and that, as much as apathy, accounts for low voter participation.
It happens, however, that this election is taking place in circumstances that could greatly change the European scene.
One is the possible introduction of a new European constitution, which would give the parliament greater powers. This will depend on its approval later this year by Ireland, the one member country that said no first time round. If Ireland says yes, the parliament will have a bigger say in the shaping of legislation, though it will still not be able to initiate it. Since Europe is struggling to create common positions on big issues such as the environment, foreign policy and the economic crisis, a more powerful parliament could give a lot more meaning to the EU.
Another is that the economic crisis is likely to produce a strong shift to the left in the parliament, historically been dominated by the centre-right. This means that parliament’s influence could make the EU and its policies more socialist, leading to greater interventionism, including more anti-business measures.
A third is that the results of the election will shape the appointment of a new commission in Brussels, the EU’s leading body.
Given all this, you would think it made sense for concerned EU voters to get out there and make their mark, either to give more power to the parliament’s elbow, or to influence its composition. But despite all the speeches and articles telling us that “Europe matters”, the polls all indicate that the message is not getting through, and people would prefer to show their apathy and disapproval by staying away. The EU is simply not carrying its “citizens” along with it.
I have decided to stay away. Like many British Eurosceptics, I view the EU as a costly political venture which delivers few net benefits and is not interested in the sort of structural reforms that would make it genuinely useful. Until such reforms come about — and by those I mean ones that give members a sense of choice and participation — the EU will continue to be a grand-sounding but empty project run by “them” rather than by “us”.
n Lascelles is senior fellow of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation in London, and a former banking editor of the Financial Times.