The main issue arising from the European Parliament elections is whether the results represent the triumph of ideology over apathy - or vice versa. These are the two factors standing out from the overall results. Undoubtedly - as seen from the new disposition of the parliamentary seats - there has been a clear shift to the centre-right from the outgoing assembly in which the centre-left had a majority. This will dominate political responses to the parliament's work over the next five years.
But there will be many voices to say this means little in the perspective of such a reduced turnout among the EU electorate as a whole - what price a European Parliament incapable of representing its constituents even if it does have enhanced powers and has shifted somewhat to the right?
In conventional political terms there is no denying the resurgence of centre-right parties in several states, notably Germany, Britain, Sweden, Austria and Italy. In aggregate it adds up to an increase from 201 to 226 seats for the mainly Christian Democrat European People's Party and a reduction from 214 to 180 for the Socialists. This alters the parliamentary balance in ways that will be reflected in the Parliament's work and political alliances (although there are compensating shifts to Liberals, Greens, right-wing and far-left candidates).
The parliament has greater powers of co-decision with the Council of Ministers under the Treaty of Amsterdam, so the new balance will have visible political effects in the medium term. After this result it will be more difficult for the Parliament to resist the determination of the new Commission president, Mr Romano Prodi, to ensure the balance between the two institutions. By the same token, Mr Prodi will be concerned to ensure a political balance in the new Commission which reflects the state of public opinion as measured by this election.
Such is the conventional response to these results. But a turnout at just under 50 per cent on average across the 15 member-states substantially reduces the Parliament's claim to represent the peoples of Europe. In Britain, for example, it becomes extremely difficult to gauge the precise meaning of the result giving victory to the Euro-sceptic Conservatives over Mr Blair's Labour Party based on a turnout of merely 25 per cent. It is apparently a vote of no confidence in New Labour, including, arguably, Mr Blair's advocacy of a reformed social democracy presented so confidently with the German chancellor, Mr Gerhard Schroder, last week. So it seems to the French Socialist leader, Mr Jospin, conspicuously excluded last week from its remit. The best defence Mr Blair can make is that such a low turnout allows of no such conclusion - even though it is acutely embarrassing and will make his task of bringing the United Kingdom closer to the heart of Europe (including joining the euro) all the more difficult.
Politicians throughout the EU will have to devote much more attention to making programmes and common institutions more relevant to individual voters. There is indeed a switch of sovereignty from the nation-states to EU authorities in selected domains. But if ideology is to triumph over apathy, voters will have to be convinced that political management of this makes a significant difference to their lives.