I agree with the statement you quoted from Clint - there was no single version of Leave which won, there were lots of contradictory versions put out there, not one of which was meant to be binding on the government.
One of the most embarrassing things in the post-referendum period was people sarcastically demanding of the government "well come on then, where's the £350m per week for the NHS?" when it was clear that, unlike with an election where a new government comes in and is expected to deliver its manifesto pledges, the government had no obligation to deliver anything promised by any leave campaigner, other than that we'd leave the EU in some form or other.
The government does have to honour the referendum result, even though it was legally non-binding. That being said, any version of Brexit satisfies this, be it No Deal, Chequers, Norway, EEA, EFA, Canada, etc. I'd support a second referendum IF it had been the case at the time of the 2016 vote that we'd only leave if voted through in a second referendum, but since that's not the case there's obviously no justification for a second vote. I voted Remain and would prefer it if we were staying but even so it's clearly unfair to require an additional hurdle when the 2016 vote was so obviously advertised as the final vote on the UK's membership of the EU. Yes there were untruths told, on both sides, but that's politics - show me an election where the main players were not telling porkies and engaging in questionable financing.
