I'm frustrated by hearing about the "will of the people". Nearly as many people voted Remain as Leave, and a substantial number didn't vote at all. So pretty even I'd say.
No one knows the individual motivations of those original Leave voters, but we certainly remember what dominated the debate at the time of the vote: savings to spend on the NHS, immigration and taking back control.
It now emerges that any savings will be eaten up by the divorce bill, and the drop in trade will mean less tax receipts and so less government money.
As for immigration, the debate took place against a news backdrop of Syrian refugees paddling their way to Europe and the possibility of Turkey joining the EU. Those "threats" are barely in the news now.
Taking back control sounds great, but there is a cost to jobs and the economy. For some people that may seem a fair swap, not so for others. In fact most of the Leavers I speak to don't have "skin in the game", e.g. their jobs are safe regardless or they are retired.
In the original referendum, there was very little dissatisfaction expressed about the current EU trade set-up, outside of niche industries, e.g. fishing. So I find it bizarre that the hard Brexiteers claim people voted in order to forge new trade deals with faraway lands. More likely that people were pissed off with immigration, felt patriotic and didn't consider trade deal intricacies.
So I think it would be reasonable to vote again, based on the revelations of the past two years. And to set a minimum lead for one score against the other (most countries who have constitutional referendums require a majority of 75% to enact them).
However, given the divisiveness of the issue, who can face stirring up all that aggro again?