Warren Oates, Jim Simpson and Chris Jensen are "no" voters. No two ways about it - it's no, no, no.
They sit in the middle bar at the Top Pub (as the Hotel Queanbeyan is known), eating chicken schnitzel, chips and gravy at $12.50 - and chewing the fat about the way the world turns.
And on the referendum, it's turning the way they want it to. The polls indicate a defeat for the proposal for an advisory Voice to parliament for Indigenous people, and that accords with their views.
"I just think it's going to divide people," Chris Jensen said.
"A lot of Aboriginal people are saying 'no'," Jim Simpson said.
"Our nation's First People are divided on this issue. Why?" Warren Oates asks, echoing his friend.
Mr Oates is worried about the absence of detail about how the Voice advisory body would work: "I don't really have all the facts and explanations about it, and the implications down the line," he said.
He has absorbed theories from social media and Sky News (Andrew Bolt is a favourite figure).
He concedes that some of the information may not be true: "Where the information comes from, I don't know - but I don't hear the 'yes' people contradicting it."
As they sit in the bustling pub, the three voice their scepticism as part of a Canberra Times series leading up to the referendum.
They doubt the need for the Voice. They express the view (amplified by Liberal leader Peter Dutton with his call for an "audit") that a lot of money meant to help Indigenous people has not been put to good use.
The three men are articulate, intelligent and engaged with the issue. They are respectable members of their communities. Mr Oates used to be in the building trade. Mr Jensen was a mechanic who now works with disabled people. Mr Simpson splits his time between the south coast (growing garlic) and Canberra and Queanbeyan (driving trucks).
EXPLAINER: Why don't we have more detail on the Voice to Parliament?
They cite a string of reasons for opposing the Voice, some of them concrete (whether right or wrong) and some of them out-and-out conspiracy theories (like the baseless claim that Aboriginal people will negotiate a treaty with the United Nations under which land will be returned to them. The World Economic Forum is alleged to be involved).
Mr Oates is worried that the Voice is only a first step.
He mentions the Uluru Statement which, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission, sought a Voice to Parliament but also "a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations peoples that acknowledges the historical and contemporary cultural rights and interests of First Peoples by formally recognising sovereignty, and that land was never ceded".
This prompts Mr Oates to ask: "The treaty itself - how far does it stretch? Albo said he will advocate and push the Uluru Statement but they won't explain what's going on."
He also thinks (in an echo of Trumpian America) that the government might rig the vote: "We're also worried that the government will decide what the result is."
Mr Simpson doesn't like the attitude of some "yes" campaigners, and their alleged assumption that people would just fall into line.
"The 'yes' people are just a bunch of thugs - bullies," he said.
At the start of the campaigns and debate on the Voice, Mr Simpson said he was undecided but had been pushed into the "no" camp by the lack of detail. It made him wonder if there was a hidden agenda.
"I was happy to go and listen but when nobody came forward with a concrete idea about what was going to happen; about who was going to control it - when nobody could answer, sorry, but I went down the conspiracy theories about it," he said.
There may also be an underlying resentment. They are uneasy about special treatment for Aboriginal people.
"For 98 per cent of Aussies, if you're a good bloke and you do your job and you've got a sense of humour, most Aussies will accept you," Mr Jensen said.
What emerges from their views is that the "no" camp has tapped into a raft of uncertainties and resentments.
The view from the middle bar of Hotel Queanbeyan is not unique. The referendum seems to have opened a box of unforeseen troubles and rifts.
