The Parliamentary Roots of European

Social Policy Turning Talk into Power

1st Edition Roos Mechthild
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-parliamentary-roots-of-european-social-policy-turn
ing-talk-into-power-1st-edition-roos-mechthild/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Parliamentary Roots of European Social Policy:

Turning Talk into Power 1st Edition Roos

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-parliamentary-roots-of-
european-social-policy-turning-talk-into-power-1st-edition-roos/

The Power of Religion Religion and Power 1st Edition

European Academy Of Religion

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-power-of-religion-religion-and-
power-1st-edition-european-academy-of-religion/

Clear Thinking : Turning Ordinary Moments into

Extraordinary Results Shane Parrish

https://ebookmeta.com/product/clear-thinking-turning-ordinary-
moments-into-extraordinary-results-shane-parrish/

The Origin of Scientology Turning Science Fiction Into

Religion For Profit 1st Edition Gerald Charles Tilley
Phd

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-origin-of-scientology-turning-
science-fiction-into-religion-for-profit-1st-edition-gerald-
charles-tilley-phd/
Parliamentary Diplomacy in European and Global
Governance Diplomatic Studies 13 Stelios Stavridis

https://ebookmeta.com/product/parliamentary-diplomacy-in-
european-and-global-governance-diplomatic-studies-13-stelios-
stavridis/

Tap Into the Power of the Chant 1st Edition Baal Kadmon

https://ebookmeta.com/product/tap-into-the-power-of-the-
chant-1st-edition-baal-kadmon/

Personal Finance: Turning Money into Wealth, 8th

edition Arthur J. Keown

https://ebookmeta.com/product/personal-finance-turning-money-
into-wealth-8th-edition-arthur-j-keown/

Germany’s Role in European Russia Policy : A New German

Power? 1st Edition Liana Fix

https://ebookmeta.com/product/germanys-role-in-european-russia-
policy-a-new-german-power-1st-edition-liana-fix/

Hardiness Turning Stressful Circumstances into

Resilient Growth 2013th Edition Salvatore R Maddi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/hardiness-turning-stressful-
circumstances-into-resilient-growth-2013th-edition-salvatore-r-
maddi/
Palgrave Studies in European Union
Politics

Series Editors
Michelle Egan
American University, Washington, DC, USA

Neill Nugent
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

William E. Paterson
Aston University, Birmingham, UK

Following on the sustained success of the acclaimed European Union

Series, which essentially publishes research-based textbooks, Palgrave
Studies in European Union Politics publishes cutting edge research-
driven monographs. The remit of the series is broadly defined, both in
terms of subject and academic discipline. All topics of significance
concerning the nature and operation of the European Union potentially
fall within the scope of the series. The series is multidisciplinary to
reflect the growing importance of the EU as a political, economic and
social phenomenon. To submit a proposal, please contact Senior Editor
Ambra Finotello ambra.finotello@palgrave.com. This series is indexed
by Scopus.
Editorial Board

Laurie Buonanno (SUNY Buffalo State, USA)

Kenneth Dyson (Cardiff University, UK)
Brigid Laffan (European University Institute, Italy)
Claudio Radaelli (University College London, UK)
Mark Rhinard (Stockholm University, Sweden)
 Ariadna Ripoll Servent (University of Bamberg, Germany)
Frank Schimmelfennig (ETH Zurich, Switzerland)
Claudia Sternberg (University College London, UK)
Nathalie Tocci (Istituto Affari Internazionali, Italy)
More information about this series at http://​www.​palgrave.​com/​
gp/​series/​14629
Mechthild Roos

The Parliamentary Roots of European

Social Policy
Turning Talk into Power
1st ed. 2021
Mechthild Roos
University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

ISSN 2662-5873 e-ISSN 2662-5881

Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics
ISBN 978-3-030-78232-0 e-ISBN 978-3-030-78233-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78233-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Magic Lens/Shutterstock

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered

company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham,
Switzerland
Acknowledgements
There are people who love reading acknowledgements before diving
into (or even regardless of) a book’s contents. I am one of them. They
provide beautiful evidence that behind every book, there’s an author,
and behind the author(s), there’s a crowd. Even if writing a monograph
demands many, many hours in academic solitude (particularly tangible
in times of a pandemic…), it is a pleasure to see that the published
result builds strongly on a dense network of collaboration, friendship
and love.
That is certainly true for this book, which would be much poorer
without the help and support of many people, bodies and organisations,
the most important of whom I would like to mention here. First and
foremost, I would like to express my profoundest gratitude to my
doctoral supervisors—my Doktorvater David Howarth and Anna-Lena
Hö genauer at Luxembourg University, and N. Piers Ludlow at the LSE—
under whose guidance this book took shape, and who are all in their
own wonderful ways champions of advice, encouragement and
inspiration, plus, over time, friendship, for which I am possibly the most
grateful. I am furthermore very thankful for the advice I received from
my examiners Berthold Rittberger, Francis Jacobs and Benoît Majerus
(to whom I am particularly indebted because he showed confidence in
my research and teaching abilities already before I had been granted an
opportunity to prove them—indeed, without whose encouragement I
might never have started a Ph.D. in the first place). I am furthermore
very grateful to René Leboutte, under whose supervision this research
project took off, and who offered much valuable advice prior to as well
as after his retirement.
In the assembly of the archival material on which the analysis of this
book builds, I received great support from various archives and
libraries. Special thanks go to the team of the Historical Archives of the
European Parliament in Luxembourg—especially to Alexandra
Devantier, for her patience and all her help with my many requests—
and of the Historical Archives of the European Union in Florence, as
well as of the Fondation Jean Monnet pour l’Europe in Lausanne, where I
was granted a Henri Rieben Scholarship for archival research.
 I would not have gained as profound an understanding of internal
processes, procedures and the dominating ideas in the European
Parliament (EP) prior to 1979 without all the information, memories
and experiences that former Members of the EP and EP staff shared
with me. I am very grateful to the 26 contemporary witnesses who
agreed to answer questions about their time in the EP,1 and also to the
children, assistants and friends2 of the interviewees who helped with
access, translation and technological implementation of the interviews.
These interviews were conducted with generous financial support from
the Institute of Political Science and the IPSE Doctoral School of the
University of Luxembourg, and through a fieldwork grant from UACES,
the association in the area of European studies most dear to me, where
every event—regardless of its size or theme—feels like coming home.
Friends and colleagues at various academic institutions have greatly
helped me sharpen my arguments, look at my material from different
and new angles and walk the fine line of interdisciplinary research,
starting with the wonderful people at the Institutes of Political Science
and History at the University of Luxembourg, my alma mater. Amelia
Hadfield and her colleagues at the Centre for European Studies,
Canterbury Christ Church University, allowed me to try out ideas and
arguments, and to sharpen my academic research and writing skills as
Jean Monnet Guest Scholar at their centre. During an immensely
productive and pleasant retreat as a Guest Researcher at the Max
Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory in Frankfurt, I could
then polish the manuscript in the most stimulating of settings. I am
deeply grateful to Stefan Vogenauer, Head of the Department of
European and Contemporary Legal History, for this opportunity, and to
the great people in his team—especially to Philip Bajon, Jan-Henrik
Meyer and Philipp Schmitt—for countless inspiring exchanges. Finally,
my doctoral research could be turned into this book thanks to the
support and backing of my dear colleagues at Augsburg University’s
Institute of Social Sciences, and particularly of our team at the Chair in
Comparative Politics of Peter A. Kraus.
Many more deserve to be mentioned here, but I dare not overstretch
the already extended word count of the manuscript (many thanks for
the extension and, more importantly, for all their support and advice in
the publishing process to Ambra Finotello and Geetha Chockalingam
from Palgrave Macmillan). An additional handful of people, however,
cannot remain unnamed: I am greatly indebted to Amie Kreppel for her
expertise and feedback on various aspects of this research project;
many thanks also for making available to me a big collection of EP Rules
of Procedure. Thanks also to Craig Parsons for our insightful discussion
and his advice on the study of ideas in European integration, and to
Koen van Zon for many inspiring talks about the early EP and the
Communities in the 1950s and 1960s in and around the beautiful Villa
Salviati and Badia Fiesolana during our simultaneous stays there. To
Lennaert van Heumen for discussing and conceptualising the study of
informality, and for finding humour in the more uncomfortable parts of
academic life. And finally, to Mathias Haeussler—who is the co-architect
of the single most productive, inspiring and entertaining virtual office
in existence, and whose contribution to this work goes so much further
than his phenomenally constructive historical and linguistic advice. The
exchange in our co-working space has repeatedly pushed me to aim yet
a little higher and go just a little deeper, and I already look forward to
the next 1001 instances of shared academic joy, despair, bewilderment
and amusement.
Finally, my family deserves and has my profoundest gratitude: my
parents and my siblings, who allowed me to grow up believing that I
could reach almost anything with sufficient dedication, and who
continue to show me what such dedication looks like; but, more
importantly, who silently but firmly ensured that the connection
between them and their rarely resting no. 3 was never cut, no matter
how far the distance, so that I always knew where to find orientation
and rest.
And, most importantly, my personal little European union,
consisting of the little A currently crawling around my legs, and the
roughly 2.25 times bigger A who I am grateful beyond words to have at
my side. Not even the most poetic, elaborate, beautiful
acknowledgements section could capture what happiness you instill
into my every day.
Abbreviations
Art. Article
e.g. exempli gratia (for example)
EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
ECB European Central Bank
ECJ European Court of Justice3
ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
ed(s). Editor(s)
EDC European Defence Community
EEC European Economic Community
EP European Parliament
EPC European Political Community
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESC European Economic and Social Committee
ESF European Social Fund
et al. et alii (and others)
et seq. / seqq. et sequens (and the following page/s)
Euratom European Atomic Energy Community
HAEU Historical Archives of the European Union (in Florence)
HI Historical Institutionalism
HSI Historical-Sociological Institutionalism
i.a. inter alia (amongst others)
i.e. id est (that is)
ibid. Ibidem (in the same place/reference)
ILO International Labour Organisation
MEP Member of the European Parliament
OJ Official Journal of the European Communities
p./pp. Page(s)
RCI Rational-Choice Institutionalism
SEA Single European Act
SI Sociological Institutionalism
SPD Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (German Social
Democrat Party)
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UN United Nations
WEU Western European Union
Contents
1 Introduction:​The Parliamentarisat​ion of a Consultative
Assembly
1.​1 Research Question
1.​2 The EP Pre-1979:​An Understudied Actor with Noteworthy
Influence
1.​3 Studying the EP’s Institutional Evolution Through the Lens
of Community Social Policy
1.​4 Collection, Processing and Interpretation of the Source
Material
1.​5 Structure of the Analysis
1.​6 Refuting the Image of a Powerless “Talking Shop”
A1 Annex:​List of Interviews
References
2 Conceptualising the European Parliament’s Gain in Power, 1952–
1979
2.​1 Introduction
2.​2 Historical-Sociological Institutionalist​Approach (HSI)
2.​2.​1 What is an Institution?​
2.​2.​2 Explaining the EP’s Institutional Development With
Historical Institutionalism​(HI)
2.​2.​3 Explaining MEPs’ Behaviour with Sociological
Institutionalism​(SI)
2.​2.​4 Combining HI and SI in One Hybrid Theoretical
Approach
2.​3 Conclusion
References
3 The Institutional Evolution of the European Parliament Prior to
1979
3.​1 Introduction
3.​2 Brief Chronology of the EP’s Institutional Evolution Prior to
1979
3.​3 Parliamentary Powers, and How They Were Obtained
3.​3.​1 Power of Control
3.​3.​2 Legislative Power
3.​3.​3 Budgetary Power
3.​3.​4 Power of Initiative
3.​4 The Impact of MEPs’ Shared Ideas and Socialisation
3.​4.​1 Preparing the Ideational Ground:​What Induced MEPs
to Become Engaged in the EP Prior to 1979?​
3.​4.​2 “We Turned It into a Parliament”:​The Impact of Norm
Entrepreneurs
3.​4.​3 Parliamentary Powers Through a Parliamentary
Institutional Structure:​Party Groups and Committees
3.​5 Conclusion
References
4 Creating a Borderless Europe:​The European Parliament’s
Activism in the Pursuit of a Free Movement of Persons
4.​1 Introduction
4.​2 The European Communities’ Social Policy Concerning the
Free Movement of Workers and Their Families
4.​3 The European Parliament’s Social Policy Concerning Free
Movement Prior to 1979
4.​4 The Ideological Basis of MEPs’ Behaviour in the Area of Free
Movement Policy
 4.​4.​1 Towards Equality of all Community Citizens:​
Dominating Policy Ideas in the EP’s Free Movement Policy
4.​4.​2 Displayed Unity Despite Controversial Debates:​The
Impact of Shared Polity Ideas on the EP’s Free Movement
Policy
4.​5 The Impact of the EP’s Free Movement Policy on Its
Institutional Development
4.​5.​1 From Activism to Alignment:​Gradual Change in the
EP’s Free Movement-Related Policy making
4.​5.​2 The Institutionalisa​tion of the Consultation Procedure
Through Rhetorical Entrapment
4.​5.​3 Inter-Institutional Contacts as a Means of
Empowerment
4.​6 Conclusion
4.​7 Annex
References
5 Emancipating Europe:​The European Parliament’s Involvement
in Community Equality Policy
5.​1 Introduction
5.​2 The European Community’s Equality Policy
5.​3 The European Parliament’s Equality Policy Prior to 1979
5.​4 Institutional Factors Shaping the EP’s Equality Policy
making Over Time
5.​4.​1 The Policy-making Framework Shaping the EP’s
Activism on Equality Policy
5.​4.​2 The Impact of Contemporary Events and
Developments on the EP’s Equality Policy
5.​5 The Ideational Basis of MEPs’ Activism for More Equality
5.​5.​1 The Shared Policy Idea of Comprehensive (Work-
Related) Equality
 5.​5.​2 The Influence of Polity Ideas on the EP’s Equality
Policy
5.​5.​3 Norm Entrepreneurs Shaping the EP’s Equality Policy
5.​6 Conclusion
References
6 Forging Europe’s Next Generations:​The European Parliament’s
Children and Youth Policy
6.​1 Introduction
6.​2 Community Social Policy Concerning Children and Youth
6.​3 The European Parliament’s Policy Concerning Children and
Youth
6.​4 Teaching the Next Generation the Values of Integration:​The
Ideational Basis of the EP’s Children and Youth Policy
6.​5 Formal and Informal Rules Determining EP Activism
Concerning Children and Youth
6.​5.​1 Attempts to Formally Legitimise Activism:​MEPs’
Reference to the Treaty
6.​5.​2 MEPs’ Changing Usage of Policy-making Tools in
Children and Youth Policy
6.​6 Conclusion
References
7 Controlling the Purse:​How the European Parliament Shaped
Social Policy Through the European Social Fund
7.​1 Introduction
7.​2 The Establishment of the ESF
7.​3 The EP’s Gain in Power Through the ESF
7.​3.​1 Gradual Institutional Change in the EP’s Involvement
in the ESF
7.​3.​2 The EP’s Informal Empowerment Through the ESF
 7.​4 Policy and Polity Ideas Driving MEPs’ ESF-Related Activism
7.​4.​1 Policy Ideas:​The ESF as a Means to Establish a
Community Social Dimension
7.​4.​2 Polity Ideas:​The ESF as a Means of Empowerment
7.​5 Conclusion
References
8 Conclusion:​The Making of a Parliament
8.​1 Introduction
8.​2 Main Findings
8.​2.​1 The Impact of Ideas, Norms and Socialisation on MEPs’
Behaviour
8.​2.​2 Processes of Institutional Change Resulting in the EP’s
Gradual Gain in Power
8.​2.​3 Why Did the Commission and the Council Accept the
EP’s Empowerment?​
8.​2.​4 Bringing the Community Project Closer to the People:​
The EP’s Impact on the Evolution of European Social Policy
8.​3 Added Value of the Hybrid HSI Approach
8.​4 Outlook
References
Index
List of Figures
Fig.​3.​1 Distribution of the duration (in days) of EP mandates prior to
1979, sorted in quartiles

Fig.​4.​1 Number of EP documents concerning free movement per year

Fig.​5.​1 Number of adopted EP resolutions and reports concerning

equality policy per year

Fig.​5.​2 Number of parliamentary questions concerning equality policy

per year

Fig.​6.​1 Percentage of EP documents concerning children and youth

among all EP documents on social policy consulted for this research

Fig.​6.​2 Number of adopted EP resolutions and reports concerning

children and youth per year

Fig.​6.​3 Number of parliamentary questions concerning children and

youth per year

Fig.​7.​1 Number of adopted EP resolutions and reports concerning the

ESF per year

Fig.​7.​2 Number of parliamentary questions concerning the ESF per

year
List of Tables
Table 1.​1 Distribution of national background and party-group
affiliation of the interviewed former MEPs

Table 1.​2 List of interviewees

Table 3.​1 The evolution of the EP’s formal powers prior to 1979

Table 4.​1 Community legislation on the free movement of workers prior

to 1979
Footnotes
1 My gratitude goes not only to those 25 who are listed in the annex of Chapter 1 as
interviewees, but also to Ep Wieldraijer, who had agreed to speak with me about his
experiences in the EP prior to 1979, but who passed away three days before the
scheduled day for the interview.

2 Special thanks go to Maurizio Travella for his help as a translator during the
interview with Renato Ballardini.

3 This book uses the abbreviation ‘ECJ’, rather than ‘CJEU’ (Court of Justice of the
European Union) as is normally used nowadays, because ECJ was the abbreviation
commonly used during the period under consideration.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. Roos, The Parliamentary Roots of European Social Policy, Palgrave Studies in
European Union Politics
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78233-7_1

1. Introduction: The
Parliamentarisation of a Consultative
Assembly
Mechthild Roos1
(1) University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

Mechthild Roos
Email: mechthild.roos@phil.uni-augsburg.de

Studying the European Parliament’s (EP) history prior to its first direct
elections in 1979 frequently prompts the question: why should anyone
care? Why invest time and effort to study an institution without
noteworthy powers and functions? Indeed, the bulk of academic work
on the EP covers its pre-1979 development on a space ranging from one
sentence to two or three pages. These studies usually point out—
rightfully—that the pre-1979 EP was little more than a consultative
assembly in formal terms, with only one notable power, namely to
dismiss the Communities’ executive (i.e. the High Authority of the
European Coal and Steel Community, and later the Commission of the
European Economic and Atomic Energy Communities). These works
mostly take the two budget treaties of 1970 and 1975, which granted
the EP a say in budgetary matters, and the EP’s first direct elections in
1979 as the first indicators of the EP’s evolving parliamentary nature,
truly achieved only from the 1980s and 1990s, when the Single
European Act (SEA), the Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaties
granted the EP increasing legislative powers.
 By contrast, this book argues that, long before Parliament’s formal
empowerment, Members of the EP (MEPs) succeeded in cementing the
parliamentary fundaments of their institution through their
supranational-level activism. This activism was facilitated by the
growing willingness of other Community institutions and member state
governments to accept the EP’s involvement, and a range of exogenous
developments such as crises and technological change, providing fertile
ground for the MEPs’ endeavour to empower their institution. This
book analyses MEPs’ activism and the EP’s resulting gain in
institutional and political power, suggesting that the EP’s formal
empowerment from the late 1970s and 1980s was to some extent the
result, rather than the beginning, of institutionalisation processes
within the EP leading to increasing parliamentary influence within the
Community political and institutional system.
In its analysis of the EP’s gradual parliamentarisation, this book
builds on the differentiating conceptionalisation of power on the one
hand and influence on the other by Bressanelli and Chelotti (2019).
Based on their definition—which is slightly extended here to cover not
only formal, but also informal processes—power is understood in the
following “as a capability formally [or informally] institutionalised or, in
other words, as an institutional attribute allowing actors to shape
outcomes despite external opposition”.1 Influence, in turn, is defined as
the concrete instance “when power, as an institutional capability, is
concretely exercised and put into practice”.2 The following chapters
trace the evolution of such power and influence in the EP’s early
institutional development.

1.1 Research Question

This book analyses the EP’s institutional evolution over the first three
decades of its existence with the aim to answer the main research
question:
How did the EP shape social policy, and thereby its own role and
powers, in the European Communities prior to the first direct
elections in 1979?
 The EP’s gain in power prior to 1979 is analysed with a focus on
both institutional gains—i.e. changes of the rules of the game—and
policy gains—i.e. gains within the existing rules of the game, and more
specifically in the area of social policy, as further discussed below.
These two types of power gains can be considered the dependent
variables in the analysis, the development of which is studied by
identifying and analysing a variety of institutional, ideational and social
factors as well as the larger contemporary context that influenced
MEPs’ behaviour and the EP’s institutional development. Within the
study of power gains, this book traces both formal and informal
changes. It shows which of these gains became established and
contributed thus to the EP’s long-term empowerment, and which were
merely short-lived gains in impact (rather than power or influence).
The chapters of this book aim to answer the main research question
from different angles in a historical-sociological institutionalist (HSI)
analysis, i.e. an analysis applying tools and building on theoretical
assumptions from both historical institutionalism (HI) and sociological
institutionalism (SI), as explained in more detail in Chapter 2. The
analysis of institutionalisation processes and of institutional change in
the early EP on the one hand, and of MEPs’ ideas and the impact of their
socialisation on the other, constitute the two main dimensions of the
above-mentioned research question. They can be formulated in two
sub-questions, which will guide the analysis:
(1) Why, how and with what consequences did MEPs become involved in
Community social policy making?

(2) What institutionalisation processes shaped the EP’s role and powers
prior to 1979?

While contributing from their different angles to the overall

analysis, neither of these two questions suffices in itself to explain the
EP’s institutional development prior to 1979. Instead, this book seeks
to show that the EP’s gradual gain in power can only be understood
through the study of different sets of explanatory factors which, in their
interplay, resulted in a significant empowerment of the EP beyond
Treaty paragraphs. From a historical institutionalist point of view, such
factors are exogenous and endogenous events and developments
resulting in intended or unintended processes of institutional change,
which in turn led to shifting balances of formal and informal powers. SI
adds to the analysis an ideational, normative and sociological
dimension in focusing on factors such as the impact of norms, policy-
and polity-related ideas and resulting logics of appropriateness on
actors’ behaviour.
Importantly, this book looks at the EP as a body consisting of and
being steered by its individual members, rather than as a unitary actor,
as sub-question 1 indicates. This distinction is crucial insofar as the
early EP’s frequent deviation from Treaty provisions cannot be
explained without examining the changing behaviour of its members,
and the reasons and ideas driving them to act the way they did. If an
institution acts in compliance with formal provisions, it can be assumed
that all—or at least a decisive majority—of its members agree with
these provisions to the extent that they consider it reasonable to follow
them. However, if an institution deviates from formal provisions, the
reasons for this deviation, and moreover the reasons why it deviated in
one direction and not in another, need to be sought among its members.
Such a deviation suggests that a significant part of these members did
not agree with the formal provisions, and considered another option of
behaviour more profitable or appropriate. Indeed, this study discusses
the ideas based on which MEPs considered a deviation from the
Treaties more appropriate than compliance with the Treaties. The early
EP—seen as a product of the actions of its members—is therefore
shown to have been ever-changing and ever change-seeking prior to
1979 (which it arguably remained also thereafter).

1.2 The EP Pre-1979: An Understudied Actor with

Noteworthy Influence
In studying the EP’s institutional development prior to 1979, this book
focuses on a period of the EP’s evolution which is still significantly
understudied, based not least on the misconception that the relatively
powerless position of the EP which the Treaties provided corresponded
to the EP’s actual institutional role in Community policy making.
Whereas a growing corpus of literature examines the EP’s general
development as a parliamentary institution,3 and sheds light on some
select aspects of its early history,4 much work remains to be done in
explaining the EP’s evolution, and notably its gain in power beyond
Treaty changes and formal procedures. This applies in particular to the
EP’s history prior to 1979.
Those studies that take into account the EP pre-1979 focus
predominantly on the EP’s formal gain in power, notably through Treaty
changes, such as the Treaties of Rome of 1957 and the budget treaties
of 1970 and 1975.5 A series of publications furthermore emphasise the
impact of specific events on the EP’s powers and position within the
Communities, such as the negotiations of a European Defence and
Political Community,6 and the Empty Chair crisis 1965/1966.7 In
addition, several authors have analysed specific aspects in the
development of the EP’s institutional structure, namely its committee
structure8 and party-group system,9 as well as various individual party
groups10 and national delegations.11
The first works which approached the EP’s early development from
a broader angle appeared in the 1990s. Noteworthy in that respect are
in particular the works by Westlake (1994) and Corbett (1998): both
discuss evolving procedures within the EP and inter-
institutionalcontacts at Community level which were gradually
formalised, including concessions by the Commission and the Council
in the extension of the consultation and conciliation procedures, and
the involvement of the EP more generally. While both authors point out
such formally acknowledged concessions as established successes, they
do not question their respective application in everyday politics—
which this book shows to have been incomplete in several instances.12
Notwithstanding, these studies offer some valuable starting points for
research on the gradual institutional development of the EP, notably
because they take into consideration gradual and initially informal
changes, the importance of which for the EP’s evolution is
underestimated in the majority of publications covering the early EP to
date. More recent exceptions in that regard are the publications by
Rittberger (2005, 2012, 2014) on the EP’s role as the provider of
legitimacy to Community policymaking, Meyer (2011, 2014) on the
EP’s evolving agenda-setting power in the area of environmental policy
during the 1970s, and Krumrey’s 2018 monograph on the symbolic
politics behind the EP’s gradual parliamentarisation during the 1950s
and early 1960s.
The most comprehensive study of the EP’s gain in power to date is
the recent volume by Ariadna Ripoll Servent (2018), which covers the
EP’s evolution from its creation until today. In her multifaceted analysis,
Ripoll Servent traces the activism of MEPs and embeds it in the
respective institutional and contemporary context, thus offering an in-
depth understanding of emerging formal and informal rules and
procedures. Given that the volume covers the EP’s entire history, Ripoll
Servent puts significantly more weight on recent developments than on
the EP’s beginnings,13 providing punctual—albeit cutting-edge—
insights into the EP’s early years, rather than a coherent analysis of its
institutional beginnings.
In a similar vein, Héritier et al.’s (2019) volume “European
Parliament Ascendant” constitutes a highly insightful study on different
“Parliamentary Strategies of Self-Empowerment”.14 The book examines
a range of examples of such strategies during the entire period from the
EP’s beginnings until today. Yet, the focus of analysis also leans more
towards recent developments than the EP’s early years. Studies like
those by Ripoll Servent and Héritier et al. are nonetheless a crucial
basis for this book, in that they allow the findings of the following
analysis to be situated within the broader context of the EP’s
institutional development. Only by taking into consideration later gains
in power can it be established to what extent procedures which have
their roots in the period 1952–1979 developed a lasting impact on the
EP’s institutional evolution.
Another important pillar on which the following analysis builds
consists of contemporary studies from the 1950s to 1970s on the EP.
These publications, many of which are authored by practitioners who
worked in Community institutions during the period under
examination, have to be treated with some caution from an analytical
point of view given their limited timeframe and a certain level of
partiality. Nevertheless, they offer valuable insights in that they lay a
focus on very different issues than more recent studies on the EP,
including everyday working procedures, and personal experiences of
informal practices and routines.15
 In addition to these different corpora of works focusing directly on
the EP, the following analysis builds on the broad landscape of
literature on other Community institutions. In order to contextualise
the early EP’s gain in power, this book draws on literature concerning
notably those institutions with which the EP frequently interacted, and
which in turn had a decisive influence on the EP’s development—i.e.
first and foremost the Commission and the Council.16 Studies on these
institutions help embed MEPs’ activism and the EP’s gradual
empowerment in the evolving Community institutional system. This
literature analyses contemporary circumstances which the following
chapters show to have influenced MEPs’ behaviour, and the success or
failure of EP activism. This literature also helps understand why the
Commission and Council allowed—or accepted at least—that the EP’s
gradual empowerment took shape,17 and what national preferences
were at play in the context of different decisive events in the process of
European integration.18

1.3 Studying the EP’s Institutional Evolution

Through the Lens of Community Social Policy
The following analysis seeks to explain the EP’s institutional
development, as implied in the research questions, through its
involvement in Community social policy. This focus of choice requires
further elaboration: in the 1950s, the founding Treaties attributed only
few articles to both the EP and social policy, making one a rather
insignificant policy area and the other a rather insignificant institution
at Community level during the examined period. Yet, the area of social
policy is eminently suited to gain a deeper understanding of how and
why the EP gained significant parliamentary powers prior to its first
direct elections, despite the limited role provided for it by the Treaties.
Even though Community social policy was handled by national
governments largely as a byproduct in the establishment of the
Common Market,19 it developed into fertile ground for MEPs’ activism,
providing them with ample opportunities to develop and
institutionalise procedures of parliamentary involvement in
Community policymaking. Indeed, with regard to MEPs’ activism and
resulting institutional practices, this policy area can be seen as to some
extent representative of the Community’s policy spectrum at the time.
The policy-making tools applied by MEPs in order to empower their
institution were not area-specific, nor were the parliamentary powers
the delegates pursued. The area of social policy functions here as a
magnifying glass, allowing to trace MEPs’ typical behaviour in a series
of concrete cases within one focus area.
At the same time, social policy provides some unique insights,
particularly when it comes to the analysis of factors driving MEPs in
their supranational-level activism. More specifically, this area offers an
ideational dimension of analysis that no other Community policy area
could provide to the same extent. Namely, MEPs saw in social policy the
potential to directly reach the member states’ citizens with Community
measures, having a palpable impact on the people’s living and working
conditions. This direct connection to the citizens was considered
crucial by the MEPs, as the chapters of this book demonstrate, for
mainly two reasons.
First, the aim to deepen and extend European integration towards
the attainment of European Union, which the majority of MEPs shared,
could in the delegates’ view only be realised based on strong public
support for and on people’s identification with the Community project.
The MEPs hoped to reach such support and identification by
demonstrating to the people how Community social measures could
improve their lives, for instance with regard to their housing and
employment situation, and social-security coverage.
Second, MEPs sought to establish their institution as the
representative of the people, in order to increase its parliamentary
character, and to reinforce their argument before the Council and the
Commission that the involvement of the EP in Community legislation
would provide Community decision-making with more democratic
legitimacy. Consequently, MEPs strove for a better social regulation of
the citizens’ living and working conditions, based on contacts with
social partners, interest groups and their constituents, in order to
strategically position themselves as promoting the people’s interests.
The representative character of social policy measures and the fact
that they were used as a potential connection to the Communities’
citizens thus offer a key to understand the ideas driving MEPs in their
activism. In addition, precisely because social policy was so little
regulated and often at the margins of Community policy making, it
constituted a terrific playground for the kind of MEP activism that left
Treaty provisions far behind. The involvement of the EP in such a
vaguely defined area of limited Community competence therefore
allows for a profound analysis of MEPs’ strategies to reach political
aims and to empower their institution through the broadest possible
interpretation of the Treaties.
The area of social policy was integrated more slowly, with more
difficulty and reluctance than a number of other policy areas such as
economic, transport or agricultural policy.20 To some extent, this was
because the—in the majority centre-right—governments of the Six did
not envisage European integration to have a strong socio-political
dimension in the 1950s, assuming that flourishing markets and a
peaceful Europe would contribute in themselves to an improvement of
people’s living and working conditions, as further discussed below.
Another reason lay in the different social systems which had evolved in
the six, later nine member states over the previous century.21 Based on
the distinct national social-security systems and their historical
evolution, the member states had different definitions of social policy,
which complicated political harmonisation. France, for instance, treated
employment policy and social policy as one area, and in the Anglo-
Saxon understanding, education policy was an inherent part of social
policy, whereas other member states handled these areas differently.22
Nonetheless, adding a social dimension to the European integration
project was already discussed and to some extent agreed in the
negotiations of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel
Community(ECSC). The underlying idea was not so much the pursuit of
a common social policy. Rather, the national delegations feared negative
reactions from trade unions and the public if not putting a visible focus
on the welfare of those persons who would be concerned by the new
Community project. Moreover, the idea that the ECSC would be just the
beginning of a broader project of political integration, eventually
comprising all policy areas, was shared by a number of delegations
around the negotiation table.23 The introduction of social topics into
the Treaty was hence based on broader strategic considerations rather
than concrete policy-related ambitions.
 In the negotiations of the Treaty establishing the European
Economic Community(EEC), social policy issues were to some extent
used in the pursuit of individual national aims rather than common
policy lines. Rye (2002, 2006) has analysed in detail how the French
delegation in particular prolonged discussions on social harmonisation
by making demands on which the French delegates knew that the other
delegations would have extreme difficulties to reach agreement.
Officially just aiming to prevent the distortion of competition, the
French government was eager to “secure time, protection and
approval”24: the French Parliament needed to be won over on the
Common Market project, and the French industrial sector was in dire
need of modernisation if it was to keep up with other member state
economies. Only once the French government felt sufficiently secure
that these aims could be reached did it agree to sign the Treaties of
Rome; up to that point, the area of social policy provided a convenient
tool to drag on the negotiations.
As a result of these strategic rather than content-related
considerations, and of the governments’ general reluctance to codify
strictly socio-political integration, most social policy-related articles in
the EEC Treaty remained relatively vague. Indeed, the Six were not only
hesitant to transfer responsibility to Community level, they also did not
see much need to do so, assuming that “steady economic expansion and
the creation of a free trade area and its concomitants would
automatically lead to prosperity for all”.25 Consequently, all three
founding Treaties contained specific social provisions merely for a
handful of specific issues, namely where a distortion of competition
was feared, or where it was expected that market failures would need
to be corrected.26 That concerned first and foremost labour migration,
so that the articles on the free movement of workers were among the
most detailed social provisions in the Treaties.27 Moreover, Community
intervention was provided for circumstances causing an elevated need
for retraining and housing,28 or wage inequalities.29 In addition, the
Treaties granted the Communities competences in the policy areas of
training30 and occupational safety,31 and allowed for social measures
concerning specific policy sectors such as agricultural32 and transport
policy.33 In spite of such a relatively broad portfolio, however, social
policy remained at the margins of Community action and legislation,
which is visible not least in the budget shares dedicated to it: in 1975,
for instance, only 6.5 per cent of the Community budget was reserved
for allocations in the social area, comparable to the allocation for the
Commission’s administration, which constituted 5 per cent of the
budget.34 Overall, Community social policy focused only upon those
persons who were “full-time members of the indigenous labour force,
or undergoing training or retraining for employment”,35 demonstrating
that social policy provisions were introduced to the Treaties with the
main aim to support economic rather than social integration. The belief
that politics could control the economy—including the application of
social policy measures to achieve full employment—was fundamentally
undermined only with the 1970s crises.36
Crises were indeed important motors for the development of the
European social dimension, not least because they allowed MEPs to
intensify their involvement in Community policymaking beyond Treaty
restrictions. During the period under consideration, the 1950s coal
crisis as well as the economic and financial crisis following the collapse
of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 and the 1973 oil shock had
significant impacts on Community social policy.37 Both periods had dire
consequences for the concerned Community industries, causing
unemployment and factory closures, and forcing numerous workers to
retrain and (particularly in the case of migrant workers) move.
Moreover, a number of mine accidents in the 1950s, the gravest of
which took place on 8 August 1956 in the Belgian town of Marcinelle,
forced the Communities to reconsider their social-security policies. In
these mine accidents, many Community migrant workers were among
the victims, making these accidents a Community issue.38 There were
no provisions in the founding Treaties that enabled or facilitated the
member states in collectively tackling events of such dimensions and
the resulting socio-economic conflicts, so that the Treaty-provided aid
mechanisms were insufficient to cope with the consequences.39 The
swift technological development of the 1960s and 1970s had similarly
unexpected effects, leading to a change of tasks and consequently of
required qualifications or even the entire abolition of a number of jobs,
notably in the industry sector, and to an increasing shift of workers to
the services sector.40
Such events and developments opened unintended opportunities
for political activism, which allowed actors like the Commission and—
as demonstrated in this book—the EP to push for an extension of the
Communities’ otherwise narrow and vague social policy. Both
institutions strove for the implementation of a broader European social
dimension from the 1950s, the EP even more so than the
Commission.41 The MEPs “always opposed the view that social
problems are only incidental to economic integration”,42 and
consequently pushed for Community social measures beyond
investment where economic return could be expected.43
The underlying aim was twofold: on the one hand, most MEPs who
steered the EP’s social policy were genuinely driven by the motivation
to improve the citizens’ living and working conditions, as provided for
in all three founding Treaties,44 not least in order to demonstrate that
the Community project had a palpable positive impact on people’s lives.
This aim was generally shared by the Commission, and from the late
1960s increasingly also by the member states, allowing the extension of
the Community’s social dimension beyond the narrow limits of the
Treaty articles.45 On the other hand, political activism in the area of
social policy helped MEPs position themselves as representatives of the
people, both in the eyes of the citizens, who should see that “their”
delegates fought in their interest, and in the eyes of the other
Community institutions, who should acknowledge the EP’s function as
bridge to the Communities’ population. MEPs thus hoped to gain
legitimacy for their institution as a parliament, and not merely a
consultative assembly, so that the delegates could argue that the EP’s
involvement in Community decision-making helped to democratically
legitimise Community action. From this twofold motivation derived a
wide range of EP activism in the area of social policy, which is analysed
in the following chapters.

1.4 Collection, Processing and Interpretation of the

Source Material
This book seeks to fruitfully combine different approaches in its
analysis of the early EP’s role in Community social policy. It does so not
only in its hybrid theoretical approach of historical-sociological
institutionalism, but also in its methodological approach to the process
of data collection, processing and interpretation. Herein, it seeks to
bridge two disciplines: political science and history. In the case studies
of this book, findings within the theoretical framework from political
science are backed up by an extensive dataset of archival documents
and semi-structured interviews with contemporary witnesses, thus
including a key element of historical analysis. Moreover, the analysis
benefits from insights and methodological techniques from the area of
oral history, which enhanced the preparation, execution and
interpretation of the semi-structured interviews.46
Two categories of sources thus constitute the basis for the analysis
of the EP’s gradual empowerment in Community social policy. First, a
corpus of ca. 4,000 EP documents which are accessible in the Historical
Archives of the EP in Luxembourg and the Historical Archives of the EU
in Florence was assembled, providing insights into the actions of the EP,
its groups and committees. This corpus consists on the one hand of
approximately 200 resolutions and reports that mark important events
and developments in the EP’s institutional evolution, for instance
introducing party groups and committees to the EP’s Rules of
Procedure, adopting changes of the EP’s institutional title, and
demanding more general institutional change in the Communities, such
as notably the empowerment of the EP. The bigger part of this corpus
(ca. 3,800 documents), on the other hand, constitutes a near-
comprehensive47 collection of EP documents concerning social policy
which were produced prior to the first direct elections, including
resolutions, reports, parliamentary questions, minutes of debates,
opinions, drafts, motions, amendments, memoranda and working
documents. The qualitative analysis of these documents allows for an
in-depth understanding of MEPs’ behaviour, of their changing strategies
and evolving activism, as well as to some extent of the ideas driving
them. Moreover, quantitative developments such as the changing and
overall increasing frequency of EP involvement in Community social
policy, shifting political priorities and changes in the applied policy
tools can be demonstrated based on a dataset created through the
coding of all these documents.48
However, the documents depict only the official output of the EP:
although not every document was publicly accessible at the time of its
production, and some constitute background material only, all of them
were produced within those working processes of the EP that were
either formal, formalised or at least to some extent proceduralised.
They therefore offer only limited insights into informal and newly
evolving procedures, both within the EP, and between the EP and other
Community institutions. What is more, whereas dominating ideas can
be traced in many of the documents, the evolution of these dominating
—and of competing—ideas cannot be fully explained by EP documents
alone. They also provide only limited information on the socialisation of
the early MEPs both prior to and during their European mandates.
Hence, the research question outlined above could not be
comprehensively answered based on EP documents alone.
In order to gather necessary additional information, a number of
personal accounts from contemporary witnesses were collected: apart
from consulting a number of former MEPs’ published memoirs,49 the
author conducted 25 semi-structured interviews and written
exchanges, including 22 with former MEPs, two with former members
of EP staff and one with a former special advisor to the Irish
government who was involved in the drafting of the Social Action
Programme of 1974. The 22 interviews with former MEPs cover all
member states and party groups prior to 1979. Table 1.1 gives an
overview of the distribution of nationality and party-group affiliation of
the interviewed former MEPs.
Table 1.1 Distribution of national background and party-group affiliation of the
interviewed former MEPs

Party group CDG* SG* LAG* ComG* EPDG* ConG* NA* Total
Country
Belgium 1 1
Denmark 2 2
France 1 1 2
Party group CDG* SG* LAG* ComG* EPDG* ConG* NA* Total
Country
Germany 1 3 1 5
Ireland 1 1 2
Italy 1 1 2
Luxembourg 1 1 1 3
Netherlands 2 1 3
United Kingdom 1 1 2
Total 3 11 3 1 1 1 2 22

*CDG = Christian Democratic Group, SG = Socialist Group, LAG = Liberals

& Allies Group, ComG = Communist Group, EPDG = European
Progressive Democratic Group, ConG = Conservative Group, NA = non-
affiliated
The main issue in the interviewees’ party-group affiliation and
national background that leaps to the eye is the over-representation of
former Socialist MEPs. While the author tried to keep as even a balance
as possible, a number of difficulties arose during the organisation and
the conducting of the interviews. First and foremost, the few former
delegates who sat in the EP prior to 1979 who are still alive have
reached an advanced age, which complicated the process of getting in
touch with them, not least because phone or post were often the only
media available to reach them, but addresses and phone numbers could
not always be found. In some cases, health conditions did not allow the
scheduling of an interview. Once an interview could be conducted,
however, interviewees occasionally provided contact details of former
colleagues, allowing the author to get in touch with additional MEPs. It
seems that Socialist MEPs remained particularly well connected, which
is one of the reasons why they dominate the list of interviewees.
Another possible reason lies in the comparatively high number of
younger Socialist MEPs prior to 1979, which means that particularly
many of them were still alive.50
In addition to the bias with regard to party groups, the sample of
interviewees is biased with regard to the period it covers: hardly any
MEP could be contacted who held a European mandate in the 1950s or
early 1960s. Most interviewees sat in the EP during the 1970s, and only
a small number had entered the EP already in the second half of the
1960s. Notwithstanding these imbalances, the interviews that were
conducted offer a valuable and indeed necessary fundament of the
analysis, as they provide information, which is not accessible to that
extent elsewhere. Given how small the EP was at the time, how
comparatively low the level of fundamental controversies was, and how
relatively united MEPs strove for common political and institutional
aims (as analysed in more detail in the following chapters), the bias of
the sample loses some of its significance. Table 1.2 (in the annex of this
chapter) presents a list of all interviewees.
All interviewees were asked the same catalogue of questions, in
addition to which specific details from their own experience were
discussed in more detail. The questions dealt with MEPs’ perceptions of
the EP and its powers in general, with procedures, structures and
everyday working routines in the EP and contacts with the other
Community institutions, with MEPs’ individual engagement in the EP
and their double mandate, with MEPs’ attitudes towards European
integration and the role the EP played therein, and with the EP’s social
policy. Moreover, the interviewees were asked about their personal
background, the reasons for which they entered the EP and why they
left it, and what other national, European or international experiences
they had that stood in any relation to their European mandates.
The two interviewed members of EP staff were asked questions
similar to the first part of the questions addressed to the MEPs, namely
about the functioning and everyday working procedures of the EP,
about inter- and intra-institutional relations, and about dominating
ideas and norms in the EP not only among MEPs, but also among
members of staff. The two interviewees worked for the EP’s two biggest
party groups: Fionnuala Richardson was an administrator of the
Socialist Group from 1974, and became the group’s Deputy Secretary
General in 1982; Arnaldo Ferragni was Secretary General of the
Christian Democratic Group from 1966 to 1972. Unfortunately, the
author was unable to contact more former members of staff, both
because of difficulties in obtaining contact details, and because of a lack
of time and resources. However, the author was able to gather more
information on staff perspectives since a number of interviewed MEPs
themselves experienced the EP from that perspective, having worked in
the EP or another Community body prior to or after holding an EP
mandate.51 Furthermore, a number of interviewed former MEPs could
give insights into the cooperation of the Council with the EP, because
they later became ministers in their national governments and thus
members of the Council.52
Based on EP documents and the semi-structured interviews, the
assertion of certain procedures and ideas over others in EP
policymaking is traced in the following chapters. The extent to which
the different chapters of this book build their analysis on EP documents
and on the conducted interviews differs according to the subject under
examination. Indeed, the case studies have been chosen so that they
cover a variety of institutional and ideational factors influencing the
EP’s institutional evolution. Some of the following chapters focus more
on the development of rules and procedures within and around the EP,
whereas others discuss cases in which shared norms and ideas steering
MEPs’ behaviour came to the fore particularly clearly, as discussed in
more detail below. Consequently, the analysis of some chapters builds
more on official EP documents, whereas the statements made by
interviewees and MEPs’ speeches during plenary debates, for instance,
play a more important role in others. These different foci of analysis
allow for a multifaceted analysis of the early EP’s socio-political
activism and institutional development.

1.5 Structure of the Analysis

The book is divided in eight chapters. Following this introduction,
Chapter 2 sets the frame for the subsequent analysis by presenting the
theoretical approach. The chapters thereafter constitute the analytical
core of the book. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the EP’s
institutional evolution prior to its first direct elections. It analyses inter
alia through which strategies MEPs pursued a number of parliamentary
powers for their institution: namely the power to control the executive,
legislative power, the power of initiative and budgetary power. The
chapter examines also how the EP’s evolving internal structure of party
groups and committees enabled MEPs to increase the effectiveness of
their treaty-based as well as non-treaty-based actions, and facilitated
the socialisation of new MEPs into the EP and its working procedures.
Furthermore, the chapter traces the assertion of pro-European ideas of
ever closer integration over others, notably through the activism of a
small group of particularly engaged MEPs who assumed the role of
norm entrepreneurs in the early EP.
The four chapters which follow then analyse the involvement of the
EP in three key sub-areas of social policy, and in the establishment of
the European Social Fund (ESF) as the main financial tool to implement
Community social action. Opening these four case studies, Chapter 4
discusses the initial cornerstone of Community social policy: the free
movement of workers, the implementation and regulation of which was
considered a necessity by all member states in the creation of the
Common Market. Based on clear Treaty provisions, Community
legislation was adopted relatively swiftly, partly even ahead of the
schedule set in the Treaties, which in the area of social policy was rare
(as the other case studies demonstrate). Even though the Treaties did
not provide for any EP involvement in the set-up of the free movement,
MEPs managed to gain a say in the related decision-making procedures
as early as during the 1950s. Chapter 4 analyses the strategies through
which the delegates succeeded in influencing Community legislation,
what formal and informal tools they used, and based on what
ideological foundation they pursued the bigger aim of reaching not only
a free movement of workers, but of all member state citizens in the
Communities.
In most other areas of social policy, MEPs had fewer Treaty
provisions to go with than in the case of free movement. Chapter 5
examines a case in which the MEPs could refer to only one narrow,
though still relatively clear, Treaty article to pursue broader socio-
political aims: Art. 119 EEC provided for the equal pay of male and
female workers for work of equal value. Chapter 5 analyses how a small
group of mainly female MEPs used the EP as a forum to promote their
ideas of equality. The chapter also shows that this policy area stood out
in comparison to the other case studies in that MEPs did not try to
instrumentalise equality policy in their pursuit of institutional aims
with regard to the strengthening of the EP, or the deepening of
European integration more generally.
 Chapter 6 analyses a case going even further beyond Treaty
provisions: none of the Treaties contained any provision on children,
and merely one article (Art. 50 EEC) touched upon youth affairs, calling
for youth exchanges among the member states. Yet, the EP developed
from the 1950s an extensive children and youth policy, and pushed for
Community action to make younger generations feel concerned by and
involved in the bigger context of European integration. Indeed, whereas
this case study provides limited insight into the EP’s involvement in
Community legislation and formal decision-making procedures, it
allows for a profound analysis of the ideational basis in which the
MEPs’ activism beyond Treaty articles was rooted. This case study
contributes thus to the understanding of the ideas and norms steering
MEPs’ behaviour not only in their activism concerning children and
youth but also in their striving for closer integration more generally.
The fourth and final case study looks at a policy instrument rather
than another policy issue: Chapter 7 analyses how MEPs used their
Treaty-assigned powers to become involved in the establishment and
revisions of the European Social Fund to pursue different socio-political
and institutional aims. With a focus on the EP’s legislative and
budgetary powers, and its powers of control and initiative, the chapter
studies various strategies through which MEPs attempted to improve
the member state citizens’ living and working conditions and their own
institutional position at the same time. Using their say in the
Community budget, the delegates sought—at times successfully—to
shift the focus of Community social action towards disadvantaged
groups, to change the weighting of policy items through changes in the
Community budget, and to put issues on the agenda for which the
Treaties foresaw no Community competence. The chapter therefore
reveals the interplay of path dependencies and strong, relatively
uniform ideas-driven activism, which in turn led to a significant power
gain for the EP.
Each of these four case studies serves to identify different factors in
the EP’s gradual gain in power through its involvement in Community
social policy. They were selected on the one hand based on a variation
in the density of Treaty provisions, in order to see how the presence or
absence of formal rules shaped the behaviour of MEPs in their pursuit
to empower the EP and reach more socio-political integration. Among
the four chosen cases, Treaty provisions for the respective social policy
areas ranged from clear and relatively strict guidelines (Chapters 4 and
7) to very few—if any—Treaty provisions (Chapters 5 and 6). On the
other hand, the case studies were chosen with a view on different
factors influencing the EP’s institutional development: in some of the
case studies, the MEPs’ activism was mostly driven by their ambition to
deepen political integration (Chapters 4 and 6), in one case mostly by
the MEPs’ aim to strengthen their institution (Chapter 7), and in one
case, MEPs used the EP first and foremost as a platform to attain policy
aims which they pursued unconnected from more general ideas of
European integration (Chapter 5).
Naturally, none of these case studies provides insights into only one
single factor. The varying balance of different institutional and
ideational factors traced in the different cases allows for a better
understanding of the reasons why, for instance, certain procedures
were institutionalised in one, but not another case, and why MEPs
made use of a specific strategy in one area, but less so in another.
Indeed, the case studies are internally structured according to the
elements within the explanatory framework of this book on which they
focus more. Accordingly, Chapters 4 and 6 open with an analysis of the
ideational factors influencing MEPs’ behaviour in the respective case
studies, before shedding light on the procedures and the institutional
framework within which these ideas were pursued. Chapters 5 and 7
are more helpful to study the evolution of such procedures, of habits
and routines contributing to the EP’s gradual empowerment.
Consequently, both chapters open with an analysis of these institutional
developments in EP policymaking within the respective case study,
before discussing the influence of underlying ideas and logics of
appropriateness.
It should be noted that the case studies discussed in this book are
only a selection of those which the author examined with regard to the
EP’s involvement in Community social policy prior to 1979. Since a
choice had to be made in order to keep the length of this book within
reasonable limits, a number of case studies which also deserve
scholarly attention did not make it into the final selection. First and
foremost, most of these unselected cases would not have contributed
fundamentally new insights into the MEPs’ behaviour, their strategies
and ideas, but would have merely confirmed the findings of the four
case studies that were eventually included. Among these is the EP’s
engagement in favour of people with disabilities and elderly persons:
both groups of people are not directly mentioned in the Treaties. Yet,
the EP adopted a significant number of reports and resolutions asking
for support for these specific groups of people, their better integration
in national labour markets and in (re-)training schemes, and decent
living conditions beyond the concerned persons’ working life. To some
extent, the ideological argumentation underlying the MEPs’ activism
resembled the MEPs’ engagement in favour of children and youth: in
the eyes of the MEPs, the Communities should improve the living
conditions of all citizens, not just of the working population; and all
citizens should be able to identify with the Community project.
Moreover, EP activism concerning people with disabilities and elderly
persons formed a part of the MEPs’ engagement in favour of
disadvantaged groups of people—to which they also counted women,
children and youth—one motive behind which was the EP’s positioning
as the representative of the people at Community level. All these
aspects, however, can be demonstrated and analysed in the above-
mentioned four case studies, whereas the study of the EP’s policy
concerning people with disabilities and elderly persons offers no
distinct added value in answering the above-mentioned research
question from an analytical point of view.
As another example, MEPs’ activism in the area of Community
policy on occupational safety could have been studied as one of the
earliest cases of EP involvement in social policy. The above-mentioned
series of grave mine accidents in the 1950s in which numerous migrant
workers were among the victims led the member states to discuss
Community regulations concerning occupational safety beyond Treaty
provisions.53 This allowed MEPs who swiftly developed an expertise in
the area to leave a mark on adopted measures already prior to the
Treaties of Rome, and thus to solidify the early EP’s role as more than a
mere control body. While this could have been analysed as another case
study, it would again have provided insights on informal procedures,
underlying ideas and gradual gains in power and influence which could
largely also be demonstrated in the case studies selected for this book.
The same applies to the respective social dimensions of other
Community policy areas, which could have been studied, such as MEPs’
socio-political activism in the areas of agricultural, textile or transport
policy. All these examples would have offered only limited additional
insights, while demanding a lot of background explanation and
contextualisation, which would have overstretched the length of this
volume. The selected case studies which are analysed in the following
chapters thus represent model cases of different modes and
dimensions of MEP behaviour and the EP’s institutional development.
They reveal aspects and dynamics which can be traced even beyond the
area of Community social policy, as the conclusion to this book
discusses.

1.6 Refuting the Image of a Powerless “Talking

Shop”
The European Parliament, prior to its first direct elections, must not be
thought of as the institution described by the Communities’ founding
Treaties. Instead, whilst largely operating within its Treaty-assigned
remit, the pre-1979 EP should be considered the sum of the actions of
its members. This is the main thrust of the argument underlying each
chapter of this book. Even though the EP’s gradual empowerment was
obviously not in the hands of MEPs alone, the analysis reveals that the
MEPs’ pursuit of more integration was the main driving factor behind
the EP’s gain in power prior to 1979. It shows how social policy—a
policy area with very narrow Community competences and limited
Treaty provisions—became a springboard for the larger political and
institutional ambitions of the early MEPs. While more research is
needed for other areas to make these findings more universally
applicable, this study of MEP activism in the field of social policy
nonetheless demonstrates clearly how the EP swiftly outgrew the role
of a “talking shop” and developed noteworthy parliamentary powers
prior to 1979.54 This book thus makes an important contribution to the
literature which has thus far largely underestimated the importance of
the EP’s early years for its institutional evolution, and hence for the
developing power balance of the European institutional system more
generally.
 In so doing, the findings of this book furthermore add to our
understanding of the EP more generally, notably of its gradually
developed internal structure, its functioning and intra- as well as inter-
institutional procedures, since many of them are rooted in the semi-
and informal procedures introduced by MEPs prior to 1979. Through
the analysis of norms and ideas shared by the majority of MEPs
throughout the period under consideration, and of MEPs’ socialisation
into the EP, this book helps understand the formation of the Parliament
in its early years. The MEPs’ continuous striving for more influence,
which this book identifies for the period prior to direct elections, can be
traced throughout the EP’s entire history to the present day. Through a
focus on the EP’s very beginnings, this study makes an important
contribution to a deeper understanding of the EP’s—and its
members’—historical strive for greater influence from the 1950s.

A1 Annex: List of Interviews

Table 1.2 List of interviewees

Name Date and place National party EP MEP/EP

of the party staff
interview group* member
from/to
Renato Riva del Garda, Partito Socialista, Italy SG 1969–1974
Ballardini 17.01.2017
Georges Phone Front démocratique NA 1975–1977
Clerfayt interview, francophone, Belgium
12.07.2017
Anthony Dublin, [Special Advisor to the – –
Brown 15.02.2017 Irish Minister of Social
Welfare Frank Cluskey,
Labour Party]
John Phone Conservative and Unionist ConG 1975, 1977–
Alexander interview, Party, Scottland 1979, 1994–
Corrie 21.09.2016 2004
Jean-Pierre Hamburg, Parti socialiste, France SG 1978–1979,
Cot 25.09.2017 1984–1999
Name Date and place National party EP MEP/EP
of the party staff
interview group* member
from/to
Karen Marie Copenhagen, Socialdemokratiet, SG 1977–1979,
Dahlerup 01.04.2017 Denmark 1979–1980
Doeke Eisma Phone Democraten 66, SG 1973–1974,
interviews, 21. Netherlands 1981–1984,
and 27.10.2016 1994–1999
Maarten Phone Democraten 66, NA 1971–1973
Engwirda interview, Netherlands
12.05.2017
Ole Espersen Phone Socialdemokratiet, SG 1974–1977
interviews, Denmark
01.06.2017
Arnaldo Series of e- - CDG 1960–1972
Ferragni mails, March
2018
Colette Luxembourg- Demokratesch Partei, LAG 1969–1979,
Flesch Ville, 13.10.2016 Luxembourg 1979–1980,
1984–1985,
1989–1990,
1999–2004
Lothar Brussels, Sozialdemokratische SG 1978–1979
Ibrü gger 18.02.2017 Partei Deutschlands,
Germany
Liam Phone Labour Party, UK SG 1973–1979,
Kavanagh interview, 1979–1981
02.09.2016
Astrid Schifflange, Sozialistesch SG 1965–1974,
Lulling 30.09.2015 Aarbechterpartei, then 1989–2014
Sozial-Demokratesch
Partei, then Chrëstlech-
Sozial Vollekspartei,
Luxembourg
Charles Dublin, Fine Gael, Ireland CDG 1973–1979
McDonald 14.02.2017
Name Date and place National party EP MEP/EP
of the party staff
interview group* member
from/to
Hans- Wadern, Christlich Demokratische CDG 1977–1979
Werner 12.06.2017 Union Deutschlands,
Mü ller Germany
Fionnuala Dublin, - SG 1974–1988
Richardson 14.02.2017
Jacques Luxembourg- Chrëstlech-Sozial CDG 1974–1979,
Santer Ville, 12.09.2016 Vollekspartei, Luxembourg 1979, 1999–
2004
Heinz Phone Sozialdemokratische SG 1977–1979,
Schreiber interviews, 27. Partei Deutschlands, 1984–1989
and 28.06. and Germany
11.08.2017
Horst Series of phone Sozialdemokratische SG 1970–1979,
Seefeld interviews and Partei Deutschlands, 1979–1989
e-mails, Germany
February to
October 2017
Vera Milan, Non-affiliated, Italy ComG 1976–1979,
Squarcialupi 18.01.2017 1979–1989
Dick Taverne London, Labour Party, then Social NA 1973–1974
10.11.2016 Democratic Party, then
Liberal Party, UK
Alain Paris, Union des démocrates EPDG 1973–1978
Terrenoire 20.06.2017 pour la République, France
Arie van der Phone Partij van der Arbeid, SG 1973–1977
Hek interview, Netherlands
19.10.2016
Werner Phone Freie Demokratische LAG 1977–1979
Zywietz interview, Partei Deutschlands,
21.09.2016 Germany

*CDG = Christian Democratic Group, SG = Socialist Group, LAG = Liberals

& Allies Group, ComG = Communist Group, EPDG = European
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
vielä varjossa harjun kupeella. Kylältä ei vielä kuulunut minkäänlaisia
ääniä, mutta kosken pauhu kuului hauskana kohinana tyynen aamun
hiljaa heräävästä povesta.

Silloin uskalsivat he katsoa toisiaan silmiin. Lintujen laulu eneni,

nuoren lehden ja pihkaisen mahlan haju täytti ilman, ja taivaan sini
kirkastui. Koko muu maailma unohtui heidän ympärillään, he näkivät
ja tunsivat vain toisensa, ja kummankin sydän täyttyi suloisilla
tunteilla.

Martti kietoi kätensä Annan hennon varren ympäri ja kallisti

päänsä Annan puoleen. Anna tunsi voimiensa pettävän, ja hän sai
väräjävällä äänellä sanotuksi:

»Lähdemme kotia nyt!»

He laskeusivat alas kiveltä, katselivat vielä kiven kyljessä olevaa

ovenmuotoista, sammalpeittoista kuviota ja tulivat polulle, joka johti
pappilaan. Molemmin puolin polkua kasvaviin mäntyihin olivat
ohikulkijat piirtäneet nimikirjaimia. He katsoivat niitä, joita lapsena
olivat piirtäneet yhdessä.

»Nyt minä tiedän, mikä kesäyössä on selittämätöntä», virkkoi

Martti, ja hänen katseensa kiiti pitkin aamuauringon valaisemia
vaihtelevia maisemia.

»Joko tiedät… joko tunnet», haastoi Anna, innossaan tullen Martin

viereen. »Niin, se on kesäyön kirkkaus. Se ei ole auringon valoa,
eikä kuun valoa, ei tähden valoa eikä hämärätä; se on yön omituinen
hiljainen, kirkastettu hohde, lempeä ja juhlallinen, niinkuin
iankaikkinen ilo keskellä maan katoavaa kevättä…»
 Annan silmät säteilivät, ja Martti katsoi häneen kuin kirkastettuun
olentoon, joka oli taivaasta lähetetty hänen omia ajatuksiaan
sanoiksi ja teoiksi saattamaan.

»Anna, Anna… kuule…! Minulla on uusi ajatus, suuri ja ihana! Voi

jospa kerran voisin sen kankaalle kiinnittää!»

»Jumala antaa voimia… Jumalan kunniaksi on Hänen suuren

luontonsa jäljentäminen. Sinun 'Kesäyösi' kerran vielä tekee
kuuluisaksi köyhän perukkamme, sillä henkesi imee voimansa
kesäyön kirkkaudesta… Niin usko, ja sinä tulet onnelliseksi… ja
minä rukouksissani autan sinua… Se on korkein onneni…»

Polku, jota olivat tulleet, johti korkealle kummulle pappilan riihen

taakse. Siihen loppui metsä, ja siihen päättyi polkukin, sillä siitä
alkoivat pellot.

Pappilassa oltiin liikkeellä, ja suvannolta kuului lauttamiesten

lauluja.

»Minä olen nyt niin onnellinen, ja minun on nyt niin hyvä olla…
sillä minä tiedän, että nyt ymmärrät, miksi minä kesäöitä rakastan…
Voi, usein viime kesänä ajattelin: Jospa Martti kerran vielä Pohjolaan
palajaa… silloin hänelle sanon: Kesäyö on ihanin kaikista… Ja
kauas vieraalle maalle rukoilevan rukoukseni lähetin, sinun luoksesi,
että Pohjolaasi muistaisit…»

»Ja minä muistin… Minun tuli ääretön ikävä tänne… Kaikki

muistin: talviset revontuli-illat, varhaiset hankiaamut ja kesäiset yöt.
Siksi takaisin tulin enkä koskaan pois enää halua…»

»Mutta ystäväsi, joka sinua rakastaa…?»

 »Ei hän koskaan ole minua rakastanut eikä minun maailmaani
ymmärtänyt…»

Silloin juuri he saapuivat pappilan kujalle. Kumpikaan ei tiennyt

minkä vuoksi, mutta molempiin tarttui Martin viime puheen jälkeen
semmoinen ilo, että tuntui kuin maasta molemmin irtautuisivat.
Pääskyset kiitivät nuolena poikki ja pitkin pihaa, vilahtivat
avonaisesta ovesta karjalatoon ja suhahtivat pienestä reiästä tallin
ullakolle, visertelivät ja lensivät ihan Annan ja Martin päiden
päällitse.

Ison kuistin ovet olivat auki. Rovasti oli piippuineen tullut kuistille
keinumaan, niinkuin hänen tapansa oli aina ollut. Nouseva
aamuaurinko sopi siihen paistamaan, ja siinä oli hauska keinua, kun
ilmassa oli alkavan kesän lemua, joka kuistinkin täytti, ja huvikseen
katsella pääskysten lentoa halki päiväpaisteisen pihamaan.

Hän näki nuorten kujalla tulevan ja hymähti. Molemmat olivat

hänelle yhtä rakkaat, sillä Anna oli rovastin mielestä kuin oma lapsi.
Hän arvasi, mitä tietä nuoret olivat kesäkartanolta palanneet, ja
hänellä oli aavistus siitä, että heidän suhteensa ei enää ollutkaan
veljen ja sisaren. Hän oli sen heti huomannut.

Loistavin silmin riensivät Martti ja Anna kertomaan. Molemmat

näyttivät olevan yhtä iloisia ja juttelivat yhtaikaa.

Ruustinna kuuli ruokasaliin heidän tulleen ja riensi hänkin kuistiin.

Häneenkin tarttui heidän ilonsa, ja hän istahti rovastin viereen.

Martti ei ollut vielä yhtään kertaa sittenkun kotia saapui ollut niin
pirteällä tuulella, eikä Annasta ollut semmoinen ilo koskaan loistanut
kuin nyt.
 »Juuri tämä aika on kaikkein ihanin täällä Pohjolassa», sanoi
Martti. »Mikä ihmeellinen yö oli! Niitä värivivahduksia! Niitä taivaan
selittämättömiä valoja… Nyt minä ymmärrän, miksi isä ei koskaan
ole täältä etelään ikävöinyt… Tämmöisenä yönä ei saisi kukaan
nukkua… eikä yön ihanuutta näkemättä antaa sen livahtaa
menemään…»

Rovasti katseli ihastuneena poikaansa. Noin oli hänkin tuntenut

nuorena! Noin innostunut kaikesta siitä, mikä oli kaunista!

Ruustinna katsoi rovastiin, ja oli kuin hän olisi miehensä

hymyilevistä silmistä lukenut:

— Enkö sitä ole sanonut! Nuo kaksi kuuluvat toisilleen nyt, niinkuin
ennenkin.

Ja hänestäkin tuntui nyt, että niin pitikin olla, eikä toisin.

9.

Annan päiväkirjasta.

Valoisa kesäyö!

Parin viikon päästä on juhannus.

Ihmeaikaa on tämä, jota elän. On kuin unta ja todellisuutta.

Olen katsellut tästä päiväkirjastani niitä lehtiä, joita kuluneina

vuosina olen kirjoitellut — silloin tällöin — ja enimmäkseen silloin,
kun Marttia muistelin. On hauskaa katsella, mitä silloin tunsin ja
ajattelin, ja verrata siihen, mitä nyt tunnen ja ajattelen.

Olenko nyt onnellisempi kuin silloin, kun häntä palavissa

ajatuksissani muistelin ja rukoilin, että Jumala hänen taiteensa tien
tasoittaisi? Ehkä olen, ehkä en.

Ei, onnellisempi olen; olisin vielä onnellisempi, jos tietäisin, että

hän on onnellinen.

Mutta en voi sitä uskoa. Siitä asti olen sitä epäillyt, kun
kesäkartanolta palasimme. Mikä äärettömän ihana yö se olikaan!
Siitä kirjoitan vielä joskus eri luvun tähän päiväkirjaani. Kuinka
ihmeellistä se olikaan. Pelkäsin ja vapisin! Voi jos hän olisi
aavistanut, kuinka lähellä oli, etten tarttunut hänen kaulaansa…!

Mutta hän ei sitä tiennyt, ja niin onkin hyvä.

Kuulen hänen kävelevän edestakaisin tuolla huoneessaan

ullakolla, aivan pääni päällä. Hän avaa ikkunan ja katselee kai
pohjoisiin vaaroihin ja koskelle, jonka rantakoivut jo ovat täydessä
lehdessä. Tietääkö, että minäkin valvon ja häntä muistelen?
Aavistaako, että seuraan hänen työtään aivan kuin se olisi omani ja
koskisi omaa iloani ja onneani?

Ehkä ei muista minua. Sitä toista ikävöi — ja pian kai hän on

täällä, hänen ystävänsä, morsiamensa…

Mitä nyt oikeastaan ajattelen ja tunnen? Mitä mietin?

Istun tässä, avoimen ikkunan luona, joka antaa joelle ja

puutarhaan. Tuomi on täydessä kukassa, pian puhkeaa pihlajaankin.
Valoisa, lämmin kesäyö! Täällä pappilassa on hiljaista nyt, siellä
kaikki nukkuvat, paitsi Martti ja minä. Kylällä eivät nuku. Aina on
tiellä joku kulkija, ja korva ottaa ääniä etempää ja likempää. Ei tänä
aikana saakaan nukkua, — niin sanoi Marttikin. — Nyt täytyy imeä
kesäyön kirkkaudesta! Tämä on lyhyt, tämän valon ja riemun aika
poloisessa Pohjolassa! — Mutta minä olen viettänyt ihanan yön
Haltiain kivellä — Martin kanssa.

Jospa näkisin hänen sydämensä syvyyteen! Jospa tietäisin syyn,

jonka vuoksi hän usein on alakuloinen ja hajamielinen. Usein olen
hänet tavannut puutarhan penkillä istumasta. Hän tuijottaa joelle ja
lännen vaaroihin, harmaansinisissä silmissään ikäänkuin
pelonsekainen katse. Kaiketi hän miettii taideteostaan, joka syksyksi
joutuu valmiiksi…

»Ei hän koskaan ole minua rakastanut eikä minun maailmaani

ymmärtänyt.»

Niin hän sanoi, kun palasimme kesäkartanolta. Miksi hän niin

sanoi?
Mitä tarkoitti?

Usein olen toivonut, että hän ottaisi puheeksi Ellinsä tännetulon.

Mutta hän ei virka siitä mitään. Ehkä hän kuitenkin puhuu paljonkin
asiasta isälleen ja äidilleen. Mitäpä minulle puhuisikaan…

*****

Mutta… mutta! Jumala, anna minulle anteeksi, että ajattelen niin ja

tunnen näin! Olenko niin pohjalta paha ja itsekäs? Raukka, orpo,
köyhä tyttö olen, Jumala yksin turvanani. Onko väärin, että häntä
rakastan? Onko väärin, että rakastan häntä ja hänen taidettaan ja
tahtoisin hänen vierellään aina olla?
 Miksi sydämeni ja sieluni toista kuiskaavat? Ja miksi olen nähnyt
hänen silmistään, että hänkin rakastaa minua! Olenko erehtynyt ja
pettynyt? En. Sillä hän ei voisi pettää, ei valheverholla peittää syvien
silmiensä ilmettä. Ei ole Martti luotu tänne pettämään eikä valheen
palvelijaksi. Suurta, valoisaa totuutta on hän tullut luomaan, ja
Jumala kyllä auttaa häntä.

Voi, voi, kun saattaisin häntä lohduttaa! Kun rohkenisin häneltä

kysyä. Mutta en voi. Nämä päivät ovat olleet ikäviä, vaikka on kesän
kaunein aika. Kuinka onnellinen olisin, kun olisin varma siitä, että
hän vartoo, odotettua morsiantansa, häntä ikävöi ja rakastaa. Mutta
sitäpä juuri epäilenkin. Minä uskon niin, että hänen Ellinsä on kova ja
keikaileva maailmannainen, joka kyllä voi Marttia rakastaa, mutta ei
niinkuin Martti tahtoisi. Miksi hän muutoin olisi alakuloinen nyt, kun
otaksuisin hänen elonsa aamun kirkkaimmillaan olevan! Edessään
on hänellä loistava taiteen tie ja vieressään morsian, ystävä ja
hoivaaja!

Mutta ehkä hän ei Elliään ajattelekaan, ei minua eikä ketään. Ehkä

hän vain miettii taideteostaan, keväthankien kuultava kirkkaus
mielessään…

Nyt kuulen hänen kävelevän edestakaisin, väliin yhteen kohti

seisahtuen. Ehkä katselee hän tauluaan, uudistaen, muovaellen…
Rakas, rakas Martti! Hyvä Jumala sinulle parastansa antakoon!

Nyt taukoavat askeleet, hän varmaan koettaa nyt nukkua. Nukkua

pitäisi minunkin. Huomenna on raskas työpäivä. Juhannussiistimiset
alkavat pihasalla ja huoneissa. Kaikki pitää olla puhtoisen puhdasta,
suuren valonjuhlan tullessa. Salin kamari laitetaan kuntoon Martin
morsianta varten…
 Nythän on jo aamupuoli. Aurinko paistaa jo joelle, suvannon
luhtasaariin ja lännen vaaroihin. Kesäyö! Kesäyö!

Miksi minä maata pannessani aina muistan Ellin muotokuvaa?

Aina siihen katson, kun Martin huonetta siistiän. On kuin silmäni
siihen väkisin kiintyisivät. Mitä on niin kovalta näyttävää niissä
silmissä ja suupielissä, jotka ovat minusta niinkuin tahtoisivat purra!
Minä varmaan erehdyn. Mutta yksi asia vielä. Ruustinna ei puhu
paljon mitään Martin morsiamesta. Eilen hän kuitenkin sanoi:

»Nyt me, Anna, panemme parastamme, toivottua vierastamme

varten.»

Martti on varmaan nyt unessa, koska ullakolta ei kuulu mitään

liikettä.

Nuku, rakastettuni, unelmieni ja nuoruuteni sulho! Minä rakastan

sinua sittenkin, vaikka täältä siirtynet lämpöisempiin maihin. Lähetän
terveiseni ja palavat rukoukseni sinun luoksesi, — lähetän näin
valoisina kesäöinä ja revontulten hulmutessa talviöinä! Aina, aina.
Sillä sinun onnesi on minunkin onneni.

Isätön, äiditön, koditon ja turvaton! Uskallanko minä näin ajatella ja

näin kirjoittaa? Mutta ei minua tunto soimaa. Minusta tuntuu niinkuin
hyvä Jumala katsoisi olkani yli jokaista sanaa ja jokaista kirjainta
eikä käske panna pistettä. Miksen siis kirjoittaisi!

*****

Pari päivää on kulunut.

Työtä ja kiirettä on ollut aamusta iltaan. Ilma on edelleen kirkas ja

kuulakka, yö ja päivä ovat yhtä valoisat. Valoisat yöt, joita rakastan!
Ihmeyöt, joina lintujen laulu ei koko yönä lakkaa! Minä olen nuori ja
nautin, enkä tunne väsymystä. Koko viime yönkin olin valveilla. Koko
kirkonkylä valvoi. Kuka tämmöisinä öinä hennoisikaan nukkua!
Iloinnevatko muut nuoret tytöt näin tästä valon ajasta kuin minä! On
niin kummaa olla. On ihanaa ja surullista samalla. Laulaa tekisi
mieleni. Minulla onkin laulu kesäyöstä, jonka jo kansanopistossa
tein. Mutta minulla on nyt siihen paljon lisäämistä, paljon… paljon.
Siitä tulee kaunis laulu — kauniimpi kuin nuoren Sallan ja uljaan
Juho metsästäjän…

Minulla olisi niin kovin paljon kirjoittamista, menisi päiviä, viikkoja,

enkä sittenkään ehtisi sanoa puoltakaan kaikesta siitä, mitä tänä
kesänä olen tuntenut. Säilytät ne vastaisen varalta ja ilokseni niistä
lauluja laadin. Sillä sydämeni on täysi, täysi.

Tänään on Martti siirtynyt pois ullakolla ja jättänyt kevättaulunsa

kesken. Hän on maalausvehkeineen siirtynyt Haltiain kivelle ja
aloittanut suurta tauluaan »Kesäyötä». Kuinka siitä iloitsen! Siitä
taulusta tulee se taikakalu, joka Pohjolan loiston näyttää etelän
ihmisille. Nyt minä ymmärrän, miksi Martti on niin miettiväinen ollut.
»Kesäyötään» on miettinyt. Kesäyön ihmevaloja.

Hänen katseensa oli kirkas, kun hän aamulla minulle virkkoi:

»Nyt minä siirryn Haltiain kivelle… Luuletko, että hyvät haltiat

minua työssäni auttavat?»

»Auttavat ne… Ne rakastavat sinua, joka olet erämaan ystävä ja

kiveliön veli, metsän poika, jonka hyväksi kaikkensa antavat…»

Niin hänelle vastasin, ja hänen katseensa oli niin kovin lämmin ja

koko hänen olentonsa kuin kirkastettu.
 Minä seurasin mukana, ja me kävimme torpassakin, — niinkuin
ennenkin. Martti ja äijävaari ovat hyvät ystävät, vaikkei äijävaari
jaksa ymmärtää Martin yrityksiä. Mutta hauskaa oli.

Nyt on hän varmaan kivellä ja on aloittanut työtänsä, sillä öisin

aikoi hän työskennellä. Rakastettuni, unimaailmani sulho! Onnessa
työskentele, ja antakoon valkeuden Herra siveltimellesi voimaa ja
vauhtia!

Yksi asia on varma. Hän ei näytä isosti huolehtivan morsiamensa

tulosta. Lipposet jalassa hän kulkee paitahihasillaan niinkuin ennen
poikasenakin. Siten onkin hän kaikkein kaunein. Ei minkäänlaisia
herrasvehkeitä. En ole yhtään kertaa nähnyt hänellä tuota kankeaa,
korkeaa kaulusta, joka tekee hänet niin kovin juhlallisen näköiseksi.

Ruustinna on hänelle monta kertaa puvusta muistuttanut, mutta ei

hän näy siitä välittävän. Nauraa vain ja sanoo, että hän tahtoo kaikin
puolin nauttia vapaudestaan.

Tänä aamuna oli viimeksi puhe.

»Sinun pitää ruveta hiukan siistimään itseäsi sekä pukusi että

muunkin puolesta», sanoi hänelle ruustinna aamiaista syödessä.
»Ethän ole ajanut partaasikaan pitkään aikaan… Morsiamesi on pian
täällä…»

Minä toin juuri ruokaa pöytään ja kuulin Martin naurusuin

vastaavan:

»Morsiamelleni kelpaan kyllä näin kuin olen.»

Rovasti hymähti, ja minä näin, että hän hyväksyi Martin

mielipiteen.
 »Ole sinä vain niinkuin itse somimmaksi tunnet», sanoi hän.

Mutta ruustinna arveli:

»Kummallisia ihmisiä ovat taiteilijat, sen sanon vieläkin. Olisinpa

minä morsiamesi ja sinä tuolla lailla tulisit eteeni, niin paikalla
käskisin mennä…»

Mutta Martti hymyili vain. Jospa hän olisi aavistanut, kuinka hänen
puoltaan pidin! Noin hän oli, valkoisine paidanhihoineen, ihmeen
kodikas ja mieluinen.

Olen kuitenkin utelias näkemään, eikö hän muuta pukuaan nyt

pian, sillä juhannus on aivan ovella ja morsian saattaa tulla millä
hetkellä hyvänsä.

Hänen huoneensa on nyt kunnossa, saapi tulla milloin hyvänsä.

Hän on laulajatar, joka on ollut oppimassa ulkomailla. Tavattoman
hieno ja sivistynyt nainen, kertoi ruustinna. Mutta sittenkin näyttää,
ettei hän oikein sydämestään iloitse morsiamen tulosta. Niin minusta
näyttää. Ja muutenkin on kuin olisi painajainen koko talossa.
Hajamielinen ja kärtyinen on ruustinna, rovasti on kadottanut
herttaista iloisuuttaan, ja kaikki tuntuu niin jännitetyltä ja pingoitetulta.

Ja Martti itse?

Minä en tiedä, mitä ajatella, enkä uskalla kaikkia ajatuksiani

kirjoittaa, mutta minulla on kummallinen aavistus siitä, ettei hän ole
iloinen morsiamensa tulosta. Eikö hän sitten rakasta? Martti-parka!
Ehkä hän kärsii hirveästi!

Jospa nyt juhannus tulisi ja morsian, että tämä pingoitettu elämä

pääsisi entiseen luontevuuteensa! Olen varma, että Marttikin tulisi
iloisemmaksi. Ehkä hänen Ellinsä on hyvinkin rakastettava, vaikka
minäkin toisin luulen. Mutta varmaa kuitenkin on, että joku syy on
olemassa juuri hänessä, sillä Martti ei olisi minulle niin sanonut, kun
kesäkartanolta palasimme.

Minun tekisi mieleni juuri nyt, kun muut pappilassa nukkuvat,

lähteä Haltiain kivelle. Martti maalaa paraikaa. Nyt on sydänyön
hetki, juhlallinen ja loistava! Sydämeni kuiskaa: mene Martin luo
Haltiain kivelle, hän muistaa sinua… odottaa sinua! Tyynny,
sydänraukkani! Ei Martti minua kaipaa. Minä näen hänet kivellä
seisomassa telineen vieressä… ja hän katselee ikävöiden pitkin
pappilasta tulevaa polkua…

Ei. Ei. Minä hourin ja haaveksin. Sydämeni on sairas, sairas,

mutta rakkauttani en voi kuolettaa. Yhden ihanan yön jo olen
viettänyt — siinä onkin kylliksi, ja siinä on minulle muistoja elämäni
ajaksi.

Kuinka hirveän paha on ihmissydän! Nyt juuri ajattelen: Jospa

hänen Ellinsä sairastuisi tai joku muu este sattuisi, ettei hän tänne
asti tulisikaan.

Mikä hirveä, syntinen ajatus! Jumala, anna minulle anteeksi

pahuuteni ja anna minulle voimia Martin onnen ja menestyksen
hyväksi toimia.

Lintujen laulaessa käyn nukkumaan. Kesäyö, kesäyö!

*****

Martti ei ole käynyt kotona laisinkaan.

 Hän on nukkunut torpassa, äijävaarin pienessä, pimeässä
porstuan kamarissa, ja öisin on hän maalannut. Tänään olen käynyt
siellä ja Haltiain kivellä hänen »Kesäyötään» katsomassa. Kävin
viemässä ruokaa hänelle.

Vasta juuri olen palannut.

Martti on nyt iloisempi, ja hauskaa oli kuulla, mitä hän siellä

kahden vanhan kanssa hommaa. Hän näyttää unohtaneen koko
morsiamensa. Hän juttuilee ja tarinoipi äijävaarin kanssa, joka on
pian sadan vuoden vanha. Ukko alkaa vähitellen uskoa, että
maalaustaide sittenkin on jotakin erinomaisempaa. Ei syntiä eikä
vastoin Jumalan sanaa. Nyt käydessäni täytyi minun nauraa. Martti
on hämmästyttänyt molempia vanhoja erinomaisen hauskalla
taululla, johon hänellä jo ennen oli aihe ullakkokamarin seinällä:

Vanha Erkki poroineen.

Mutta nyt on taulussa pirtti, lampaita pirtin edessä jyrsimässä

männyn mäihää; Erkki metsästä palaamassa poroineen ja
honkakelkkoineen. Siitä on ukko mielistynyt ja nyt on niin hyvillään,
että häntä on ilo katsella.

Nyt ei hän enää epäile Martin kykyä, eikä pidä hänen tointansa
joutavana.

Martti on syönyt heidän kanssaan piimää ja leipää ja pitänyt ukon

sikaareissa.

»Minulla ei ole koskaan ulkomaanmatkallani ollut niin hauskaa

kuin täällä Jäkälärovassa näinä päivinä. Tämä on ihan kuin satua,
kun lisäksi on näin äärettömän kirkkaat ilmat», sanoi hän minulle.
 Minä toin hänelle terveiset pappilasta, mutta hän sanoi, ettei hän
vielä malttanut tulla.

»Kesäyöt ovat lyhyet kuin ihanat unet. Niitä ei saa nukkumalla

kuluttaa, sillä ihmiselämä on lyhyt», sanoi hän.

Sitten kävimme Haltiain kivellä. Mikä ihana taulu siitä tuleekaan,

suuresta kesäisestä luonnosta suoraan jäljennetty!

Hän puhui koko ajan »Kesäyöstään», ja minä näin hänestä, ettei

hän muuta muistanut eikä muuta ajatellut. Ei sanaakaan
morsiamesta. Ei edes kysynyt, joko olimme huoneen kuntoon
laittaneet.

*****

Toin hänen terveisensä, ettei hän vielä malttanut tulla, hän tahtoi
nauttia ja imeä kaikki, mitä kesäyö tarjosi.

»Hän ei enää liene oikeillaan koko poika», pahoitteli ruustinna.

»Onko nyt enää suunnillakaan, että puuhaa siellä nälinkuoliaana
eikä välitä mistään!»

Mutta rovasti myhäili herttaista hymyään.

»Niin tuleekin! Ei hän muutoin tosi taiteilija olisikaan, ellei kaikesta

sielustaan antautuisi taiteellensa. Niin unohtaa taiteilija muun
maailman, sillä taide tahtoo miehensä kokonaan.»

»Olkoon sitten», virkkoi ruustinna, mutta kun hän näki, että rovasti
hyväksyi Martin hommat, tuli hänkin paremmalle tuulelle ja sanoi:
 »Minkävuoksi hänestä nyt on tullut semmoinen kummallinen,
härkäpäinen olento… ja lapsena oli niin herttainen ja kuuliainen…»

Rovasti sanoi:

»Se johtuu siitä, että hän nyt vasta on selvillä tehtävästään.»

Nyt vasta alan minäkin Marttia oikein ymmärtää, hänen taidettaan.

Kuinka suuri onkaan hänen rakkautensa tähän luontoon! Kuinka
syvät ja voimakkaat hänen tunteensa. Minä voin vain aavistaa…

Kuinka onnellinen hän nyt olisikaan, jos hänen morsiamensa nyt

pian tulisi ja innostaisi häntä hänen työssään.

Osanneeko Elli ymmärtää hänen taideteostaan?

En tiedä. Minusta on kuitenkin kovin hauskaa, että Martti noin

tekee.
Tuntuu hyvältä minusta. Minkävuoksi? En tiedä sitäkään.

Kahden päivän perästä jo on juhannus-aatto.

Taas sama ikävä Haltiain kivelle. Olenko lumottu?

Voi että näkisin eteenpäin! Ei. Parempi on, etten mitään tiedä.

10.

Ellin kirje Martille.

 Istun täällä ullakolla huoneessasi, jossa suurta tauluasi
valmistelet.

Minä näet olen tullut. En kuitenkaan kovin suurin toivein, samoin

kuin en erikoisen pettyneenä lähde takaisin. Kyllä tiesin, ettei
suhteemme eivätkä tunteemmekaan totta olleet.

Sinä olit kuitenkin aika veitikka! Jätät kirjeen, kuvani ja

sormukseni
tänne pöydällesi ja itse pakenit — niin, ties mihin erämaahan. Ehdit
ennen minua! Hyvä niinkin.

Haluan kuitenkin nämä rivit luettaviksesi jättää ennenkun lähden

takaisin, vaikka vasta tänä aamuna tänne tulin. Matka on pitkä,
mutta minä kyllä jaksan.

En ole sinulle suutuksissa, sillä minä ymmärrän tekosi vallan

hyvin. Olen sen nähnyt kirjeistäsi, ja samaa kai olet sinäkin
huomannut minun kirjeistäni, jos olet niitä joutanut lukea.
Avioliittoon tietysti ei olisi puhetta ollutkaan, mutta olisin minä
mielelläni tahtonut täällä viikon pari viipyä, viettääkseni kanssasi
Pohjolan kirkkaan kesän idyllin. Minä näet tunnustan, että tämä
kaukainen seutu miellyttää minua kirkkaine öineen ja alastomine
tuntureineen.

Pian olin selvillä, miten asiat ovat.

Ei ollut enää varhainen aamu, kun ajoin tänne pappilan kuistin

eteen. Luulin, että oltaisiin jo valveilla, mutta niin ei ollutkaan.
(Täällä näkyykin olevan tapana valvoa öisin ja vasta auringon
noustessa korkeammalle käydä nukkumaan.) Mutta juuri kun olin
noussut kärryistä, tuli nuori tyttö, — Anna kuuluu hänen nimensä
olevan — kuistille. Hän oli hirveän pelästyksissään ja kertoi, että
rovasti ja ruustinna vielä olivat yösijalla. Kertoi, että minua oli
varrottu, odotettu kuin kuuta nousevaa…

Hän selkisi pian aamu-unestaan, ja nyt minä vasta tulin häntä

tarkemmin katsoneeksi. Hän on todella ihana kaunotar. Mutta
samalla kun sen havainnon tein, ymmärsin minä heti, että olin tullut
liian myöhään. Tunsin raatelevaa tuskaa ja pettymyksen kipuja,
mutta nielaisin kaikki menemään.

Mutta hetken perästä jo uskoin, että olinkin erehtynyt. Annan

käytös ja koko olemus oli niin vilpittömän ystävällistä ja suoraa, että
jo uskoin erehtyneeni. En ole kenenkään ihmisen katseessa nähnyt
niin lempeää, niin suoraa ja sydämeen asti avonaista katsetta.

Minä en vielä kysynyt sinusta mitään. Hän vei minut minua

varten kuntoon laitettuun huoneeseen, ja minä aloin jo tulla
iloiseksi. Kaikki näytti niin somalta. Hän pyyteli anteeksi ja vakuutti,
että kaikki tulee hyväksi, jahka ehditään.

Silloin aloitin keskustelun Annan kanssa ja sain tietää, kuka hän

oli. Ensin uskoin, että hän oli joku sukulaisesi; en ymmärtänyt, oliko
palvelija vai eikö. Hänen käytöksensä oli teeskentelemätöntä ja
suoraa. Mutta lopuksi käsitin, että Anna kuitenkin, kasvattina, oli
enemmän kuin tavallinen palvelija.

Kysyin sitten sinua.

Anna selitti, missä olet, että maalaat jotakin uutta taulua lähellä
olevassa torpassa. Katoamisestasi erämaahan ei täällä silloin
kukaan tiennyt — ei Annakaan.
 -Missä hän täällä kotona maalaa? Hän on kertonut suuresta
taulusta, jonka aihe on keväisestä kiveliöstä?»

Annan kasvot ihastuivat.

»Täällä ullakkokerroksessa. Pohjoispäässä. Hän rakastaa olla

pohjoispäässä sen vuoksi, että näköala on kauniimpi sieltä.»

Hän läksi minua opastamaan, ja me nousimme ullakolle.

»Se on ihana taulu, mutta se ei ole vielä valmis», kuulin Annan

sanovan, kun nousimme rappusia ylös.

Sitä sanoessaan soi hänen äänensä niin pehmeällä ja hellältä,

että äskeinen epäilykseni taas heräsi. Kun katsoin Annaan,
näyttivät hänen kasvonsa vaaleammalta.

Hän avasi oven, ja me astuimme tähän huoneeseen, jossa nyt

tätä kirjettä kirjoitan.

»Neiti on hyvä ja tulee alas sitten… Minä laitan siellä kuntoon

kaikki… uni, väsymys ja nälkä tulee taipaleella», kuulin Annan
sanovan, ja samalla hän poistui alas.

Hyvä olikin, että meni. Nyt sain rauhassa katsella tauluasi… Ilo ja
riemu ja ylpeys täytti sydämeni, sillä minä näen nyt vasta, että olet
todellinen taiteilija. Pitkään aikaan en voinut irroittaa katsettani siitä,
niin huikaisevan kaunis se oli suurine valkopäisine kukkuloineen,
jotka kuvastuivat tummansinervää taivasta vastaan…

Huoneessa oli siistiä, ja selvään näkyi, ettei siinä ollut moneen

päivään asuttu. Mutta minä havaitsin myöskin muuta, josta
epäluuloni taas virkistyi ja muuttui vihdoin varmuudeksi. Kukkia,
aivan vereksiä, oli maljakoissa sekä pöydällä että lipastolla. Kuka
niitä muu laittoi kuin Anna?

Katselin ulos ja avasin ikkunan.

Todellakin suurenmoinen on näköala.

Silloin huomasin kirjeen, jossa oli osoitteeni.

Ennenkuin sen avasinkaan ymmärsin kaikki.

Jos sinä hetkenä olisin voinut kostaa, olisi kostoni ollut

kamalaakin kamalampi.

Mutta minä olen näyttelijä pohjaltani, ja pusersin tuskani syvälle.

Mutta ajatuksissani riehui koston kuuma poltto — en omaani enkä
sinun onneasi ajatellut — kostoa, veristä ja julmaa…

En ole kuitenkaan niin huono kuin ehkä luulet. Ajattelin

menettelyäsi ja koetin sinua ja tekoasi ymmärtää. Ja uskon
löytäneeni syyt. Senvuoksi lauhtui vihani, ja koston henki laimeni.
Sillä minä uskon sallimukseen. Ajattelin omaa elämääni, joka on
takanani, ja tunsin, ettei se ollut semmoista elämää kuin sinun
Annasi elämä. Minun on helppo ymmärtää, että olet meitä
molempia toisiimme verrannut, ja että voitto kallistui Annan
puoleen, on selvä — siksi hyvin sinut tunnen. Minä tunnen, että et
rakasta aistillisuutta, joka on minun elämäni. Siksi kadotin arvoni
silmissäsi Annan rinnalla — ja olenhan jo Annaa vanhempikin.

Niinikään ymmärrän syyn, jonka vuoksi olet piiloutunut. Sinun

olisi ollut vaikeaa sanoa minulle suora totuus, etkä tietystikään
halunnut Annan läheisyydessä ruveta minua »rakastelemaan», jota
kuitenkin olisin tahtonut. Tekosi on haaveksijan, uneksijan teko, ja
minä käsitän sen ihmeen hyvin. Se on samalla alkuperäisen
romantillinen, vaikka se osoittaakin heikkoutta ja arkuutta.

Isäsi on herttainen vanha rovasti ja luulen, että olet isäsi

luontoinen. Äitisi on viisas, elämää kokenut nainen. Huomasin ensi
silmäyksestä, jonka hän minuun iski, että hän tahtoi katsoa pohjaan
asti. Minä luulen, että semmoisia vanhoja ruustinnoja on mahdoton
pettää — niin tutkiva on heidän katseensa. Riippuuko se siitä, että
heidän sielunelämänsä on niin kovin puhdasta, vai ainoastaan
toisen, tutkittavan, paha omatuntoko säpsähtelee tutkijan kirkkaan
silmän edessä?

En sitä tiedä. Mutta minä näin heti, että olin vastenmielinen

hänelle, vaikka hän koettikin, raukka, teeskennellä ystävällisyyttä.
Uskon, ettei ainakaan hän sure poislähtöäni.

Isäsi on toista maata, lämmin ukko, jonka nainen voisi taluttaa

minne hyvänsä. Me puhuimme paljon taiteesta ja taiteilijoista. Hän
on vanhaksi mieheksi seurannut merkillisen tarkkaan kaikkia
taideharrastuksia maassamme.

*****

Niin. Sinua on etsitty koko päivä. Ei jälkeäkään ole näkynyt.

Huomaan ruustinnan pelkäävän pahinta. Ja äsken, kun nousin
tänne ullakolle kirjoittamaan, näin ukko rovastinkin kävelevän
levottomana edestakaisin huoneessaan. He eivät tiedä kirjeestäsi
mitään, enkä siitä aio heille mitään mainitakaan. Annaa en ole
nähnyt sitten aamun, ja koko talo näyttää olevan levoton
katoamisesi vuoksi.