If it's down to prerogative power, the government (ie the Prime Minister) has the power to ignore the result of the referendum entirely. In the light of increasing evidence of the harm that Brexit promises to cause to this country that would be perfectly correct constitutionally.

She won't of course. She lacks the courage to do so. It's not a matter of respecting the result on principle as being democratically necessary. A second referendum, a binding one this time preferably, would be perfectly consistent with democratic principles.

As has been pointed out, when you buy something, in most circumstances you have the right to take it back to the shop if it proves unsatisfactory, or if you change your mind. Any time a couple get divorced there is a decree nisi before the final decree, to give a chance for thinking twice.

And there are plenty of examples where referendum results which have been widely seen as unwise have resulted in repeat referendums which have gone the other way. It happened in Ireland in respect of the EU Treaty of Nice, which was rejected in 2001, and then carried the following year with modifications, by a larger majority on an increased turnout. Ireland has if anything a better record as being true to democratic principles than the UK.

In the same way, when Denmark voted in 1992, there was a narrow majority to reject the Treaty of Maastricht, on a large turnout, very analogous to what happened with our referendum. The following year there was a second referendum, with a few modifications to the terms, and it was accepted by a significantly larger majority, on an even larger turnout. Would anybody suggest that Denmark is not a model of democracy?

And does anybody believe that if the referendum had gone the other way the Brexiters would not have fought energetically for another referendum to reverse its results? Nigel Farage in fact promised that, on the eve of the result, when he thought the vote would go the other way.