Honestly, I have never been very political. I wasn't very clued up when I voted to leave. But I felt strongly that I was doing the right thing. I was duped into thinking that it was a protest vote against the Tories and Austerity. Now I can't imagine why I felt that. But I've read that many others voted to leave for similar reasons.
Dusty, I admire your honesty in admitting this. I have a couple of colleagues who voted leave for similar reasons, and now bitterly regret it.
I genuinely don't understand how another vote, now that we know more, could possibly be considered undemocratic. It simply isn't true that the vote in 2016 has been ignored, as our politicians have spent precious little time on anything else since that time. Now that that work has been done, we know what the options are - essentially, Boris's deal, no deal or no Brexit. I guess you could make an argument to add May's deal into the mix as well.
Given that we still don't know what version of Brexit people were actually voting for (although I suspect in many cases it was the rainbows and unicorns variety which is no longer on the table), what could possibly be undemocratic about taking the options back to the people and asking them which one they want?
I appreciate that there probably isn't a clear majority for any one option, but if you used some sort of alternative vote system whereby people ranked all four options in order of preference, you would be able to identify which outcome most closely reflects "the will of the people". Make the outcome of a second referendum legally binding (unlike the first, which was merely advisory) and then we would have a clear way forward that parliament wouldn't dare block.