I wouldn't say they "campaigned" against it. Wasn't one of the biggest issues people had with Brexit was the complete lack of information and opinions from the government on how they should vote. If anything the government was too silent and didn't take a side either way.

However, a few officials did offer their opinions, but it was mostly to leave, with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage getting considerable media coverage. There was also Michael Gove, Ian Dunken Smith, Chris Grayling, Zac Goldsmith, and all those Grassroots Out guys. They were very vocal and on radio and TV nearly every day.

Just because Cameron quit office and a few other politicians said once or twice that we shouldn't leave doesn't make it a "campaign". Trust me, when the UK government campaigns they are very good at it (smoking ban, traffic safety, more surveillance less rights for people).

So no, I really disagree with your claim the government "campaigned" against leaving EU. Maybe you're right and they didn't outright support the plan, but definitely didn't put a lot of effort trying to stop it.

> Just because Cameron quit office and a few other politicians said once or twice that we shouldn't leave doesn't make it a "campaign".

I'm sorry, this is just blatantly false. You simply must not have been in the UK during the referendum campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/22/david-camer...

> David Cameron criss-crossed the country on Wednesday in a final effort to warn Britain’s voters against rejecting the EU in the historic poll, that will also be read as a referendum on his premiership.

> Appearing in his shirt sleeves, and with his voice breaking at times, the prime minister issued an impassioned personal plea to the public to reject the “untruths” of the leave campaign. He pleaded for voters to “put jobs first, put the economy first”.

well I would say (as semi pro rules lawyer) that David Cameron was grossly incompetent in framing the referendum Q. And arguably some one should have demanded judicial review as the referendum did not follow custom and practice by using a simple majority instead of the normal 2/3 or 75% to make major changes

I don't think the remain campaign was particularly effective (though the leave campaign also seemed pretty disorganized and amateurish at times), and I think Cameron was a little overconfident, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the remain side didn't really care about the result. It was obvious that Cameron's political career depended on getting a remain victory, so of course he worked hard for it.

The referendum was purely advisory, so it's up to the government to decide how they want to interpret the result. There is no "custom and practice" of requiring 2/3 or 75% supermajorities in the UK, and judicial review is pretty limited here anyway. The goal of the referendum was to deliver a blow to Ukip and the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party - anything that made the referendum seem biased against them would have just made them more angry and self-righteous.

Err no Citrine's ABC of chairman ship mentions this and its custom and practice for major changes to require a super majority every company has some types of motion that require 2/3 or 75% to pass.