The father and son walked out of the polling station in St Mary's in Donnybrook, hand in hand, laughing, enjoying a private joke.
"Excuse me, but could I ask you how you voted on Amsterdam?"
The father grinned and pointed at the five-year-old. "You'd better ask him. He cast that vote," he said, before adding: "No, I think." And the son confirmed it. "Sure he knows more about it than I do," the father said. And that was not very much.
This Dublin voter's problem was widespread. Dissatisfaction with either the amount or quality of information available to voters was cited time after time by those leaving two polling stations in Dublin.
The result places a substantial question mark over the future of the Referendum Commission, which spent £2.5 million publicising the Amsterdam referendum, and will set in train a major reexamination of the constraints on advocacy funding and broadcasting time during referenda.
A reappraisal of the meaning of the McKenna judgement on referendum campaign funding is certain, with many arguing that a way must be found for the Supreme Court to clarify its position.
The father and son were not untypical of many of the voters questioned as they left two polling stations in Dublin - one in working class Pearse Street, the other in middle class Donnybrook.
For a majority in Pearse Street the poster summed it up: "if you don't know, vote No".
"I hadn't enough information to vote," was one typical comment.
"I couldn't make up my mind, so I voted No," was another.
"It's not geared to lay people."
"I felt I was being bounced into something I didn't understand."
"There was not enough debate."
"They thought they could use the Northern vote to push through this without explaining it to us."
There were other reasons too - neutrality, duty-free, superpower politics, loss of sovereignty, fear of "conscription into a European Army" . . . But overwhelmingly, the majority who voted No in Pearse Street gave the nature of the information at their disposal and the nature of the campaign as their reason.
Levels of professed ignorance were no less in Donnybrook, but here the middle classes were more willing to let it go through on trust.
It was also clear that in voting on the Belfast Agreement voters did not feel they needed to know the details of the agreement, just that they were "for peace". The details appeared all-important on Amsterdam, and they didn't feel comfortable they knew them.
Politicians put on a brave face, masters at turning the appearance of defeat into success. Despite the fact that 38 per cent of the population had supported parties and groups with as few as four TDs, Bertie Ahern described the result as a "massive yes vote", reaffirming our commitment to Europe.
The Fianna Fail director of the Amsterdam referendum campaign, Micheal Martin, said it was a "very substantial majority" that few in Europe could emulate. He argued that the turnout on the Northern vote had probably brought out Eurosceptics who might otherwise not have voted.
Both shared the view of many that difficulties had arisen because there was no big issue on the positive side to sell the treaty and pointed to the reality that "we normally have 30 per cent against any referendum".
Mr Ahern insisted there was no shortage of information available and paid tribute to the Referendum Commission for doing a good job in difficult circumstances, but acknowledged the need to revisit the Government's interpretation of the McKenna judgement and the remit of the Commission.
Others were even blunter about the constraints on the campaign. Mr Martin described as "absolutely ridiculous" the inhibiting effect on local radio of the often impossible requirement to balance every pro speaker with an anti.
He said that it was also anomalous for an official body like the Referendum Commission to publish arguments that were patently false, such as the suggestion that Church involvement in schools might be affected by the Treaty or that its passage might lead to gay adoptions.
A review of the role of the Commission would be necessary, he argued, perhaps confining its role to straight information. Parties would have to do more in campaigns, he said.
The former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald said it was "simply not credible for the Referendum Commission to have to put forward two contradictory statements". David Andrews agreed.
Ruairi Quinn said the whole issue of how information was handled in referendums needed to be re-examined. Part of the problem was the sheer complexity of the treaty, but he would be urging the Dail to commission a professional marketing study on the effects of the Commission's publicity.
Sources also suggested that some Commission members found their role uncomfortable and would prefer not to be asked to undertake the same task again.
There is considerable support for another look at the McKenna judgement, which is seen as imposing unreasonable constraints on the campaign. Some argue that the interpretation by the Government and by broadcasters that all funding and all publicity should be divided exactly 50-50 between the Yes and No campaigns was an unduly restrictive interpretation of the judgement. Others argue that the Supreme Court should be allowed a second crack at the issue.
Mr Martin said that the judgement had led to the ludicrous situation where MEPs could not be used in radio discussions because No supporters simply could not be found to balance their views. Such restrictions amounted to an interference with their rights to free speech.
Liz O'Donnell said the requirements of the judgement were particularly "ridiculous" in the context of the Northern referendum, where representatives of a view which garnered only 5 per cent support had to be present in every broadcast discussion of the issue.
But one of the key No figures, the Trinity lecturer Anthony Coughlan, insisted that in a referendum any undermining of the "principle of absolute equality" of the Yes and No positions was going to be unconstitutional.
That view is not shared across the whole of the No campaign, however. The executive of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance had recommended that the system used in Denmark should also be used here. There, instead of making both sides of the argument, an independent referendum commission distributes cash to both sides to make their own case directly on the basis of a formula reflecting both their electoral support and the need to give particular help to minority viewpoints. The commission also distributes purely factual information about the referendum and polling arrangements.
The system has put an end to controversy over funding, while ensuring that the public is offered plenty of information and argument.
It has been winning supporters here on both sides of the argument and in the Dail with Mr Andrews saying it should be looked at, and support also coming from Ruairi Quinn, Garret FitzGerald, and the former Labour minister Joan Burton.
Mr Quinn said he had no problem with not using party political broadcasts in referendum campaigns but believed the spread of views reflected on the airwaves should more closely reflect party support than an artificial 50-50 Yes-No formula.