D.J.A.M. van Arcken
As an introductory remark I would like to say that a horticultural policy like every policy, is decided by a cocktail, a mixture, of at least 3 components. A triangle if you like and I distinguish: firstly the economic requirements or necessities, secondly the social needs and implications or consequences of this policy, and thirdly the political possibilities.

The political possibilities to create a policy play their part at national level in each country, but even more at an international level and here I refer to the Common Market. The Common Market, set up by the Rome treaty, was considered to be an approach to supernationality. What one notices at the moment is that the influence of national policies are overwhelming and here I refer to my third component in a policy, the political possibilities. At top level in the Common Market one sees the Commission, the executive body of the Common Market, intended to be a supernational, independent group of people and the Council of ministers composed of national ministers responsible for national policies. What in the course of the years of the development of the Common Market one has noticed is, that more and more the influence of the Council of ministers - the national policies - was overriding. The most outspoken example I can give you in this context is that the rule of majority voting embodied in the Rome treaty is not applied. Political possibilities were overwhelming in this overall development in the Common Market.

van Arcken, D.J.A.M. (1974). POLICY FOR HORTICULTURE. Acta Hortic. 40, 51-58
DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.1974.40.4

Acta Horticulturae