In general, you can't take a strictly advisory referendum with a win margin of a couple % to dictate your international policy for decades.
More specifically, when the winning side has committed campaign violations and the UK's own National Crime Agency has found illegal foreign interference, maybe you should investigate further instead of driving head on. If you ask me, this was the "assault on democracy", not the "do-over" approach as you wrote.
On do-overs - the Prime Minister is pushing to have a third vote on the exact same deal with the EU, after her proposal was rejected twice by the members in the course of a couple of weeks. So it's especially concerning when do-overs in parliament can happen until the government gets the desired result, while at the same time the people aren't given a chance to vote again and the outcome of the referendum is considered final.
More specifically, when the winning side has committed campaign violations and the UK's own National Crime Agency has found illegal foreign interference, maybe you should investigate further instead of driving head on. If you ask me, this was the "assault on democracy", not the "do-over" approach as you wrote.
On do-overs - the Prime Minister is pushing to have a third vote on the exact same deal with the EU, after her proposal was rejected twice by the members in the course of a couple of weeks. So it's especially concerning when do-overs in parliament can happen until the government gets the desired result, while at the same time the people aren't given a chance to vote again and the outcome of the referendum is considered final.