`I thought the farmers would have saved us," said Noel Ahern of Dublin North Central, offering Sean O'Rourke on the News at One a pathetic excuse for the failure of the Government's Treaty of Nice campaign. But the first official result announced soon after was from Kerry South where the farmers obviously felt there was nothing more the EU could do for them. Nothing, at least, to match the No campaign's threat that with a vote for Nice "You will lose power, money and freedom".
What power, money and freedom might be lost was not explained. But the beauty of such slogans is that where people are afraid of immigrants, competition or change you don't have to be specific: all you need is to encourage the growth of fear.
But vague fears make it all the more difficult to explain how we got into this mess and all but impossible to suggest how, by negotiation with our EU partners, we can get out of it. Following Denmark's example is not as easy as it sounds. The Danes had something more specific than loss of power, money and freedom to go on.
Given the turnout, and the result, some will say that too many, like Noel Ahern, relied on others - the farmers for instance - to see us through and saw no reason why we should bother to vote ourselves.
Perhaps we have come to accept that the real power in the land is not the Government, but an economic elite - the O'Reillys, the O'Briens, the Smurfits and the Desmonds - who may not spend much time here but are willing to let us have the benefit of their knowledge.
Our own knowledge of the treaty was always poor. As the campaign began only one in 10 questioned by the Market Research Bureau of Ireland (MRBI) for The Irish Times claimed to have a good understanding of what the treaty was about; one quarter said they understood some, not all of the issues, and almost twothirds were only vaguely aware of the treaty.
A fortnight later, awareness had improved by 10 points. But just half of those questioned still knew little or nothing of the treaty. And, although the gap between the Yes and No camps had been reduced by 14 points, it seemed too wide to be bridged in a week.
Thirty per cent of all ages and classes were still undecided. And seasoned campaigners guessed that, if 30 per cent admitted to being undecided, it was likely almost twice as many wouldn't vote. By all accounts, about 65 per cent abstained.
Of course the media blame politicians and their lacklustre campaigns for low polls. Politicians blame each other, the media and the balance required by the McKenna judgment. The public blames the EU with its remote and complex structures and daft bureaucratic language.
We could have done without the arrogance of Charlie McCreevy and Mary Harney and the sheer folly of Sile de Valera with her nonsense about culture. We could have done with more energetic and more vigorous critiques by the opposition.
What now? The authors of the Treaty of Nice recognised the need for discussion. The declaration proposed deeper and wider debate about the future of Europe involving national parliaments, EU institutions, national governments, trade unions, business and civil society.
Writing here at the end of May, Proinsias De Rossa called for an Irish forum along the lines of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. It would cover the division of powers between Ireland and Europe, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (opposed by some No campaigners) and simplification of EU treaties.
The forum would meet in public throughout the country and take submissions from all shades of public opinion. Its work would feed into a proposed convention at European level.
"That process," De Rossa wrote, "would be more fruitful and healthy for our political, economic and social well-being than the recriminations that will definitely arise if we reject Nice."
The relevance and reliability of debate depend heavily on the accuracy and extent of coverage. Some commentators like to complain about the dreariness of campaigns to which they've contributed more than their share of trivia, as Neil Kinnock reminded a cynical circle of smart alecs on Sky the other night.
But the media, their interests and influences, ought to be examined too. It's unusual to find someone of Gay Byrne's experience talking as openly about pressures on RTE as he does in the current issue of the RTE Guide.
"I think it is utterly ridiculous," he told Donal O'Donoghue, "that we in RTE have to go and ask Bertie Ahern for more money. I was a member of the RTE Authority and I know that it was said to various chairmen and members of the authority `oh, we didn't like the show last week about Fianna Fail or whoever. If there's any more of those you can sing for your licence fee' . . . That is preposterous to me. It is absolute blackmail . . ."
And how often does the dominant newspaper group in the State identify the interests of its leading shareholder, Sir Anthony O'Reilly?