Agreed. You’d think that Cameron’s government would have set up the vote as requiring a supermajority (i.e. at least 3/5 or 2/3 or even 3/4 of the vote) to effect a change to the status quo, especially for such an important issue.
I’m not as familiar with voting rules in the U.K., but we have precedence for supermajority requirements here in the U.S. for important votes, including the 3/5 supermajority needed in the U.S. Senate to invoke cloture and cut off further debate, the 2/3 supermajority needed in the U.S. Senate to ratify a treaty, the 2/3 supermajority needed in Congress to override a presidential veto, and the 3/4 supermajority of state legislatures needed to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
It seems odd that Cameron’s government would have allowed itself to be boxed into such a corner, and that the direction of the country could be altered by a simple majority vote, especially with the vote as close as was predicted.