My personal view is that the whole referendum campaign was a disaster and the perfect example of how lies, deception and deliberate misleading, as well as illegal activity in an election campaign can cause significant and serious long term issues.
Unlike elections to elect individuals, we have the added issue that the referendum has no time limit, where as standard elections get re-run every few years. In standard elections any illegal activity or deliberate lies or deception (if not identified or if not overturned by other methods) get eliminated when the election is re-run.
In addition, at the time the referendum was held, there was very little hard evidence about the impact of Brexit. Most of evidence presented on both sides was based on long term projections with large margins of error and which many people could find holes in. People were asked to make decisions when there was not enough information to make an informed one.
However, since we've been progressing with Brexit and trying to find make it work, we've started to see the impact Brexit will have, there is more evidence available and projections on future impacts are becoming more robust.
With both these things in mind, I believe it would be totally acceptable and democratic to go back to the people and ask them to make an informed decision on whether they now want to proceed with Brexit.
If another referendum was held, I would also love it if there were increased requirements on evidence and truth required on campaigns and clearer instructions on spending. Not sure how we'd do these things. however.
But I also believe that we do not require another referendum to proceed with options other than Brexit. An advisory referendum was held, and despite issues with the conduct, Parliament and the Government tried to follow through with the recommended outcome. But since then, there has been significant growing evidence that prove every Brexit option would be significantly more detrimental to our country than to remain. We elect our MPs to act on our behalf and in the best interests of the country. It would therefore be completely within their rights to halt Brexit entirely without any additional public vote, if it were to ensure less harm to the country. The fact we have since had a general election after the Brexit debate adds further weight to the democratic nature of this option as there is a more recent mandate for the MPs elected in 2017 to act in the best interests of the UK than there is for following through with the out comes of a non-binding referendum.
The worst outcome of all of this is to plough on with Brexit whatever the cost. That would be a dereliction of duty of every single MP who votes for it. There job is to do what is best for the country and if they knowingly vote for a Brexit deal that is proven to cause significant hurt to people, businesses, and services, then that would be a very sad day for everyone.