Not all opinion polls published by European Union institutions are worthy of study. Sometimes, the answers are entirely predictable, dictated by some slanted questions. The most important question can be which European Commission service is trying to justify its existence.

Such cynicism should be set aside when it comes to the opinion poll just published by the European Parliament. Policymakers, politicians and political scientists should get stuck into this poll: it merits both study and discussion. Scepticism should of course be retained by those weighing up any evidence, explanation or possible course of action, but both friends and foes of the EU will find plenty to chew on in the poll’s findings.

Some of the interest comes from the poll’s being one of a regular series: the repeated questions allow one to map sentiment over time – attitudes to the economic crisis, to the euro, to the European Union itself.

Just as important, arguably, are the questions that test public awareness: what do citizens know about the EU and its institutions? Are their sentiments built on sound knowledge, or on ignorance?

Some people will take comfort from the findings. Appreciation of the EU is not as low as it was – it has crept back up to 50%. Others will be disturbed – by the level of ignorance of the EU, or by the developing division between the eurozone and the rest of the EU.

There will, no doubt, be some partisan followers in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg who will use the poll to feed inter-institutional rivalries. A question inviting interviewees to name three EU institutions puts the European Parliament and the European Central Bank ahead in the familiarity stakes. The European Council – and the Council of Ministers – cannot, it seems, lodge in the public consciousness.

If one-upmanship were what mattered, then the European Parliament could take satisfaction that it comes out of this poll ahead of other EU institutions. So far ahead, indeed, in a question as to which institution best represents the EU, that some of that banished cynicism about self-serving opinion polls starts to creep in.

But those who can see the bigger picture may conclude that this is indeed reality outside the Brussels bubble. The concept of a European Parliament is easier to understand than the Council of Ministers or the European Commission. That the Council and the Commission have in the past had a stronger position in EU lawmaking than the Parliament does not change that simple truth. Voters may regard elections to the European Parliament as, in the jargon of the political scientists, “second order” – ie, subordinate to national political contests – but it is still the case that direct elections are simpler to understand than the process for appointing the European Commission.

Those direct elections are, however, problematic for supporters of the EU. Participation in 2009 was down to 43% on average, which is an embarrassment for a Parliament that lays claim to democratic legitimacy. In many EU member states, the turnout for European Parliament elections is well below the norm.

There is a school of thought that electing MEPs is not enough: more should be at stake in the European Parliament elections. Hence the demands for transnational political programmes and for the elections to deliver a verdict on candidates for the presidency of the European Commission.

The opinion poll injects some bite into these discussions by suggesting that a vote on the Commission presidency would indeed encourage citizens to turn out at the elections. That is even the case in countries where the populations are not favourably disposed to the EU, notably the UK.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

The arguments for and against an explicit or implicit vote on the Commission presidency have simmered for a while. It would complicate the rival claims of different EU institutions to legitimacy – and to independence from each other. Those who prefer a continued separation of (hybrid) roles will be opposed. This opinion poll should bring such arguments out into the open. It is a debate worth having, because it goes to the heart of the uneasy relationship between the EU institutions and the population.