So surely he should have had no role to play in the campaigning whatsoever then? If he had absolutely no accountability for the nonsense that came out of his mouth, why should he have been given any platform at all? I suppose in some ways it fits with the 'post-truth' world we're in, that there is absolutely no accountability for anything a populist politician says.
You are not 'seeing the wood for the trees' so to speak, Bruce!
You have to understand the separation between canvassing for a particular result in an election/referendum, and the post-election/referendum work that then takes place. The two are quite separate and distinct.
Based on the outcome, the (new) Government of the day and the Civil Service act upon the way forward to achieve the new goals, outwith anything that has gone before by way of canvassing/public views by politicians/big names of whatever political shade.
Thos involved in canvassing for either side up to and including 22nd June do not necessarily have any role whatsoever post 23rd June in the implementation, whichever way that has to go.
It's as simple as that. It really is...