Referendum Commission - Fiscal Compact

Morgans

Why is the impartial Referendum Commission calling the Referendum the "Fiscal Stability Treaty"?

Most Yes side debators believe that voting No is a vote against stability. Its their opinion, and good luck to them.

Should the referendum commission at least use the correct name of the treaty given that its supposed to be impartial - was Fiscal Compact not suitable?

oscarBravo

Morgans wrote: »

Why is the impartial Referendum Commission calling the Referendum the "Fiscal Stability Treaty"?

The title of the treaty is "TREATY ON STABILITY, COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE
IN THE ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION" - it doesn't seem entirely out of order to abbreviate that to "Fiscal Stability Treaty".

later12

Except it sort of ignores the sections on co-operation and governance - which, as they are in the Treaty, should be considerations.

So when people quite rightly point out that the "fiscal stability" indicators are already in place, there may a sort of tendency to park the matter there and assume that's all there is to it.
As we have seen, anything from Article 9 onwards tends not to be discussed, so one might worry it aggravates the situation to leave those sections out of the title altogether.

As I said on another thread, I asked someone in the Referendum Commission about this; his reply was that they felt the name was too long.

I have a bit of a problem with that. Nobody disagrees with the concept of "fiscal stability", but maybe the terms "co-operation and governance" added on might have made undecided voters think twice about their response.

StealthRolex

Perhaps it should be called "The Governance Treaty"