Whilst there are a lot of comments about how "leave" told untruths
and have no plan, I seem to recall being told by no less than our previous Prime Minister and Chancellor that there would be a risk of WW3, an emergency budget and a host of other bad things if the country voted to leave. Oh, and that he'd be staying on regardless. Currently the IMF has revised its estimate of doom to acknowledge that at present we're doing rather well, although as with all matters economic that is subject to change for many reasons, not all of which relate to Brexit. If the £ has gone down, then it was overvalued anyway, as some stage a correction would have ensued, and if that £249 48" LED TC in Sainsbury's goes up by 10%, is that really the end of the world? Our goods may be cheaper elsewhere (and one of my roles relates to export finance, the country exports to many places outside the EU that don't levy tariffs in the way that the EU might.) which then helps our manufacturers and any services we provide remotely, simply as the customer pays less for them.
Also it wasn't a general election, therefore there was no "manifesto" to use as a plan. It was a simple choice on a single subject. The fact that the then government and many other parties failed to plan contingencies for the result that we got means that now a bit of thought is required, and that takes time.
If there was a further vote in parliament, or even a 2nd referendum on the terms negotiated and the vote was "don't accept this", then what? We cant stay in, after all we voted to leave, but if we leave with no terms settled then things could be very much more chaotic, and I suspect some commentators would welcome this as they would feel vindicated, apportioning all blame to the decision to leave rather than the sabotaging of the process. A decision has been mandated to our politicians and they have to get on with it to the best of their ability without having the rug pulled out from underneath them. It is not like shopping in Tesco where if the other half rings even when you have reached the checkout and says "I've changed my mind about the pineapple chunks" you can decline to purchase them, with this process once you start making commitments it goes both ways and to then be forced to dither and prevaricate, in effect letting either 650 odd (some very) parliamentarians or special interest groups or even millions of voters then pick over the details is simply infeasible from a practical standpoint. You'd get even less of the stability that people are concerned about.
Lastly, for those complaining that 48% voted to stay and are being "let down" or whatever, we elect governments on an even lower "majority" than 52% under the system we have. Several times in my voting lifetime it has been for a government that I personally didn't favour but I don't recall being offered "another go" in case more like me wanted to try and change the result in the cold light of reality the next morning.
Its not perfect but unless someone can propose and get accepted a better system, its what we have. Lets try to make it work, Regardless of my own concerns I am hoping that TM will make a decent job of this and get something that works for the country, and hopefully also for our trading partners, both inside and outside Europe. And lets us travel, and the like. Of course if the EU wants to "punish" us (rather than just deny us the benefits of membership, which is understandable) collectively for the result of a democratic choice then is it really a place you want to visit or do business with?