I think we still get a fair voice.
I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The 'fair voice' you mention may be fair on a per capita basis but it's a dilution of our better current position under Nice. The EU is supposed to be a union of equals but the re-balancing usurps that idea. In fairness, if the UK rejected the treaty then that would have been the end of the matter; that, for me, underlines how big and small states are treated differently.
We retain the same water-tight position we got before Maastricht so I don’t accept that we could in any way be drawn into this but the plan was for EU as a whole to integrate further.
The French and Germans desire an EU army, I could care less, but we should stay out of it. IMHO Ireland's reputation in relation to peace keeping and as an honest broker is being undermined by a steady creep of military integration, including, joining NATO's PfP and EU Battle Groups and, under Lisbon, signing up to Peace Enforcement (and other such misadventure) and committing to military spending. Irish troops should be wearing blue UN hats, when abroad, not EU or NATO-Lite.
But it [EU Constitution] was changed.
I don't think that anyone on the Yes side really believes that there's any real difference between the EU Constitution and Lisbon.
Direst taxation is, at the moment, a sovereign matter for the member states. Corporation Tax is a form of direct taxation. This can only be changed with unanimity. Lisbon changed nothing here.
We have a different interpretation here. For me, if it were a sovereign matter then it wouldn't be an EU competency, but it is, it's an EU competency subject to unanimity. Any Irish government could surrender or trade our veto and it would be gone, forever. A renegotiation of Lisbon, although I doubt it'll happen, could include a clear statement on tax. A standardised method of calculating CT, which France and other big states will push through, is the first essential step if one wished to harmonise rates.
I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out.
I think we agreed that after Lisbon the 'Charter' would be legally binding as interpreted by the ECJ; the No side said it could/would mean X, the Yes side said it couldn't/wouldn't. Neither side could say for sure, it's a genuine question mark rather than misinformation. What is for sure is that the Irish would have no recourse to remedy an unexpected and undesirable judgment. As for Afghanistan, who knows where EU Battle Groups will pop up? Irish troops are currently (dubiously) on 'smile and wave' duty in Chad, not being able to tell the difference between Chadian troops and rebels, all armed to the teeth and milling around in pick-up trucks.
This is a long post for me, I prefer brevity . . but I'm just trying to make the point that those who voted No aren't all fools and that those who campaigned for a No aren't all evildoers.