Obviously. Dante has argued that
"The issue being that a referendum would only be decisive because sure, its currently likely to return a 'Remain' result- which is exactly what those advocating a second ref want. Which indeed would solve everything currently, article 50 would be revoked and Britain continues as is.However, that essentially merely creates an unstable but core state within the EU..."
But, so what? nothing is immutable, nothing is permanently stable, laws can be changed, even constitutions can be changed, new referendums can be made. In my opinion, the UK needs internal stability, and now faces disaggregation. So, which is worse? The Scottish Parliament has approved a new Independence Referendum, to take place between late 2018 and early 2019, "when the shape of the UK's Brexit deal will become clear".
The New EU's chief trade negotiator is the Irish Phil Hogan. The nomination of "Big Phil" means that the EU will continue to prioritize the issue of the Irish border. It's crystal clear that the Irish border order will see checks after a non deal Brexit.
It's also crystal clear to me that the nationalist concept of the Brexit, the nationalist concept of the proud nationalist Brexiteers (Boris,"We shall never surrender"- oh dear, but the EU is not the nazi Germany) is not a Scottish, Irish or Welsh concept. It is an English concept, a by product of English exceptionalism in British history.
-----
Yes, it is a "ridiculous" claim for your right wing xenophobic and racist friends in the Uk and across the world. As a side note, it's a well known fact that that populistas have a special love for direct democracy.
Do populist-leaning citizens support direct democracy? : Democratic