Yes, the Remain team gave facts - they were labelled as Project Fear
You seriously believe that one side in a complex and highly partisan political debate was completely truthful? If so I have recently acquired some magic beans that you could purchase for a considerable sum of money.
These are from the Independent, not a pro-Brexit shill:
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne
All the false claims made during the EU referendum campaign
The first one (true figure is around 17%) is arguably much worse than the oft-touted 350 mill for the NHS one.
There seems to be an attitude amongst many Remainers that they are much smarter and more rational, yet most are simply championing an idea rather than a reality.
They love the idea of Europe for ideological reasons as a metaphor for progress, globalism, enlightened tolerance, etc. and Brexit as a metaphor for parochialism, regression, bigotry, etc. without any real attempt to look at these in any depth or consider the complexities of the arguments for the other side.
Hence the idea that people were too stupid the first time round, so there should be a second vote (a "people's vote" as if the 1st one was only open to a shadowy elite).
As you see in this thread and IRL, it's hard for some to even acknowledge that there are any rational, legitimate reasons for favouring Brexit, or view the EU as anything other than a paragon of virtue despite its many, very obvious flaws. This is fandom, not rationality which is the inevitable response of any emotional issue tied to identity such as this one.
Very few people understand the complexities of the economic arguments enough to make a rational judgement on them (other than "Don't know, so better not to take the risk") and no one knows the long term consequences, yet it is frequently stated as close to fact that it will be an unmitigated disaster.
People aren't making the decisions based on evidence, but cherry picking evidence to support their initial belief (as happens on most political issues).
For most people on both sides it's mostly a value judgement: more democratic control or more integration; sense of national identity or sense of international identity, etc.
Theres nothing wrong with this, as we do it all the time, but best recognise it for what it is, rather than fooling yourself that your side really is the lone rational one.