We didn’t just drop the idea of Brexit either. The country has [supposedly] put more than two years hard graft into figuring this out. The unanimous result of the research time invested is that it’ll be worse for everyone.

Now that we have much more information, it’s not unreasonable to reconsider.

The first referendum was on whether we should leave the EU. The second is on whether we should still leave on these terms. There's a subtle, but key, difference IMO.

Bad example, as May called an election in 2017, 2 years after the prior election.

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

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.

Not in the UK, where in fact snap general elections are a thing, and Theresa May called one in 2017. In the absence of a snap election or no-confidence vote the election cycle in the UK takes place every five years. The point being that elections can be monstrously frequent under the right conditions in the UK.