…Yes you can.
A general election is always the same question, and sometimes we come up with different results.
Now that we have much more information, it’s not unreasonable to reconsider.
More realisticly this is would be the next election on the same idea. Treat the options like a political party.
The leave party made a lot of promises and people voted for them. They came into power. The leave party has no been shown to be pursuing, criminals, and incompetents over the period of their rule. Why not have the next election now so that the parties rule can be assessed?
Every election is a really a referendum on the promises and actions of the previous one. The US did it with prohibition, the UK could do it here.
Or maybe it shouldn't, in general, vote at all on that as a separate question (after first resolving if people really want to go forward with the current exit process now that there is more clarity on what that entails) except perhaps to confirm it reject an exit under a deal negotiated after a government-decided invocation of Art. 50 provides a concrete choice, since it's a complex question involving potential for negotiated terms that intersects with every other policy area; maybe the UK should vote for a Parliament and let Parliament balance the issues, proposing referenda only when the public have he information about the choices that makes the decision meaningful.
The first referendum on Brexit was a fairly naked political ploy to punt on exactly that Parliamentary duty with the hope of creating partisan advantage in a general election.
* Yes please leave with the deal we got.
* Yes, we leave, but with no deal.
* No, let us stay after all.
The big problem really is that no deal will make a lot of people happy. The people that voted remain will be unhappy, and the people that voted leave voted for different reasons. So even among the people that voted to leave previously I can imagine changing their minds.
Anyway the whole thing is a mess, from start to finish.
While ever there's the prospect of no deal, there's probably a bias towards Remain anyway (as many who want to leave probably don't want to leave without a deal). This avoids that.
1. Do you want to remain? 2. Do you accept the negotiated deal?
As a remainer, the idea of a vote split is nice, I don't think its fair or defensible and just stores issues for later as Brexiteers wont accept the result.
Obviously if we choose to remain, the negotiated deal wouldn't be needed. That's just an issue with the current wording.
I'm not in favour of an open ended renegotiate option, we've had that, its a bit of a mess, but if parliament wants to put forward an actionable, achievable plan then I would be happy to vote on that.
An other possibility would be a 2nd referendum but then you sort of have the same democratic problem (you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want) and on top of that you'd probably need three options if you held a referendum today: no brexit, soft brexit with the current proposal or hard brexit. I don't think any of these three options could get an absolute majority so I don't really see how you'd deal with the outcome of such a vote, whatever it may be.
I guess the lesson to all the democracies in the world is that you shouldn't ask a question if you're not able to deal with all the potential outcomes. Cameron held the referendum because he fully expected "remain" to win and he quit as soon as he lost. Since then it's a shitshow because nobody can agree on what "brexit" means exactly.
At this point I think we should all brace ourselves for a hard brexit scenario, a big jump into the unknown for everyone involved.