the first people's vote the UK took as an opportunity to finally be heard by politicians, while also being misinformed on what Brexit actually is. For some, a vote to leave was a stiff middle finger to party politics, and for others it was an answer to their anti-immigration prayers.
May, and others believe a second people's vote would be undemocratic. But they ignore the fact that the propaganda around the first referendum was also undemocratic. I personally believe a second people's vote would truly represent what the people want (and probably what they always wanted), which is to stay in the EU.
Some believe Brexit was a move against the EU for introducing anti-money laundering / tax evasion laws that would mean UK would need to be transparent about it's tax havens, and assets in trusts (see Panama, and Paradise Papers). Seems plausible.
I doubt UK can change leadership, ask for another extension, come to a consensus amid leadership changes and pressure from public. If parliament makes a "Stay" vote now they will be capitulating to the public demands, and it may take decades to restore the status quo and convince the voting public that they have no voice in the UK democracy. Add to that Scotland is making noises that they want to stay in EU and their first move towards that is to declare independence. Ireland may follow suit.
Speaking of flowcharts, this one might be the most accurate:
https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comm...xit_next_steps