2024 EU Elections: Real Change or Same Old Script?

Voting in the 2024 European elections: Does it matter or is it the same old story?

Less than a week before the 2024 European elections, the question isn't who to vote for, but whether it's worth doing at all. The debate, sparked in a political forum, reveals deep skepticism toward the EU, yet also a growing conviction that these elections are more important than national ones. The reason is simple: more than 70% of laws affecting Spaniards are decided in Brussels, from energy policy to immigration. Some argue that those who don't vote let others decide for them.

Why are these European elections considered the most important?

The most repeated argument is that the EU is a regulatory machine. One participant summarizes it: "The EU is becoming a hyper-regulatory, prohibitionist monster." Another adds that "the EU imposes real policies on countries," so voting helps "reduce pogre power" and boycott specific policies. The logic is one of the lesser evil: you don't vote to build, but to prevent others from building what you dislike.

The optimistic calculation assumes that good results for critical parties can halt the European Commission's agenda. The pessimistic scenario, however, holds that the European Parliament is just decoration, while true power lies with the Commission and the Council, where citizen votes don't reach. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is the target of all anger: she is accused of seeking pacts with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, generating distrust even among those sharing her parliamentary group.

Voting as punishment: Irene Montero and others

One of the most explicit motivations is protest voting. The initial message says bluntly: "In 2024, number one would basically be kicking out Irene Montero and leaving her without salary or position." Although the expression is vulgar, it reflects widespread sentiment: voting to remove someone rather than to install another. In this vein, some back Alvise Pérez, an agitator presenting himself as a scourge of extractive elites, hoping his result prevents Podemos or Junts from entering the distribution of seats.

But not everyone buys into this. Some claim Alvise is "a CNI product" placed to split the vote, and that voting for him effectively means voting for the PPSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and People's Party). Distrust of emerging parties is transversal: from those seeing Vox as insufficient to those preferring Iustitia Europa or Izquierda Española as protest votes against the PSOE.

What weight does abstention have in these elections?

Abstention is the silent protagonist. A participant states harshly: "If 80% of the population didn't vote in the European elections, surely what you say would happen: they'd keep occupying seats with nerve, pocketing money for doing nothing, legally. But they'd have a serious legitimacy problem." That is, not voting doesn't change the legal outcome but erodes system legitimacy. Another adds that the EU has "panic about abstention," hence mobilizing influencers and activists.

The counterargument is that abstention has never toppled anything. "They would gradually normalize low turnout as normal and good," argues a skeptic. "Expert committees would say it's better to only vote when you're very sure and well-formed (unless you vote far-right)." The discussion shifts to whether lack of legitimacy can generate a pre-revolutionary climate or if the system adapts to apathy effortlessly.

Voting as a tool for punishment and change

Beyond punishment, some see these elections as an opportunity to send a message. "You must vote for the trinc reasons: 1. Ensure the PSOE gets bad results. 2. Prevent the PP from rising and continuing to absorb Vox via useful vote. 3. Protest against the European Commission and Von der Leyen. 4. Give people hope that the system can change in years." It's a list mixing tactics, punishment, and hope.

The problem is that the European Parliament has seven groups, and Spanish parties are distributed among them. Vox is in the ECR group, led by Meloni, raising doubts among those who don't align with the Italian. The EPP, S&D, Renew liberals, Greens, and Left complete the board. For some, the key is which group gains more weight, not which Spanish party wins more seats.

The EU as a mafia: the abstentionist stance

Not everyone sees reasons to vote. "The EU seems like a damn mafia that must be eradicated," says the author of the initial message, who admits never having voted in European elections. Others directly reject the system: "I never vote, because voting is the powerful's invention to make the servant believe he counts in the big laughing party." Abstention is presented as a form of boycott, though some admit it doesn't remove anyone.

The discussion also touches on the EU Treaty and the possibility of leaving it. "No option openly speaks of leaving the EU, so I won't vote," says a participant. For others, however, the EU is precisely the reason to vote: "The EU is becoming a hyper-regulatory, prohibitionist monster. Of course we must vote."

Conclusion: Voting as the lesser evil

A week before the elections, the debate doesn't resolve the question. Some will vote to punish, others to stop, others to legitimize. There are those who won't vote because they consider the game rigged. What no one disputes is that decisions made in Brussels affect daily life, from economic restrictions to migration policy. The doubt is whether citizen voting has any weight in this machinery or if, as a skeptic claims, "they are the worst of all; the further they get from municipalities, the more insignificant they are." The question remains open: Is it worth voting to change something or just to prevent others from changing it for you?