And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.
The first question was, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in some totally unspecified fashion? The second question will be, should we Remain exactly as we are, or should we Leave in a no-deal hard exit, since that's the only possibility still on the table? It's no longer an abstract Leave, to which everyone can ascribe all their dreams and wishes; it's now a very specific Leave, with all the faults thereof. That may change the voting somewhat.
And, down the road, if there's another concrete Leave on the table, should the people have another referendum? Sure, why not? There probably won't be a need to vote on the negotiated Leave, though - losing by 230 votes in Parliament is probably enough. And there won't be any need to vote on a hard Brexit a second time, either - if it's voted on in a referendum, it will lose 65-35 or 70-30. (Or so I suspect, but what do I know? I'm not in the UK.)
Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10.
Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.
Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum?
Voting isn't wrong.
What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?