Haven't read too much of this thread as I'm sick to death of the whole thing, but just a minor point on the referendum - there is precedent for second votes. Ireland, for example, rejected the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6% (53% turnout). The second referendum in 2009 approved it by 67.1% to 32.9% (59% turnout). That could actually be construed as a third vote, as in 2001, they rejected the Treaty of Nice by 54%, with a 35% turnout. Earlier than that, Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992; it was rejected by 50.7% of voters with a turnout of 83.1%. Then in 1993 it was approved by 56.7% of voters with an 86.5% turnout.
So, it is neither undemocratic nor unprecedented to have a follow-up vote based on the latest information that is available. It is not unreasonable either; a great deal of information has come to light that was either not available or not publicised in the first round of rhetoric and insults; we know far more about the detail of what leaving means and what the different shades of leaving mean.
Of course, there is still a great deal of misinformation; for example there are those who would have you believe that GATT 24 will ride to the rescue; however, if we left with no deal, then GATT 24 would simply not apply.
All I know is that 30+ years working in the international supply chain industry leaves me with huge concerns about the entire situation; there are so few positives and so many negatives for supply chains, and whenever that happens, the only thing that goes up is prices.