Perhaps, if you hadn't cut off the rest of the sentence you quoted to start with, you'd see my point better. Democracy is *not* asking the same question over and over until you get what you want (or until I get what I want). But nor is it the exact opposite, ie asking a question once and once only. Democracies must be flexible. The correct balance is difficult to find, but is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.
* * * * * * *
The lesson of the last few years is that there's probably not much point in trying to force through such a fundamental change in direction in this country without proper Parliamentary support, so in the long term I would probably suggest that there is no point in any more than one further referendum (or one iteration of the two-stage process I proposed above) on the issue. Then, there are two outcomes:
1. Leave wins, and one way or another this settles the issue for the foreseeable future. With no mandate to extend Article 50 notification, we would have nowhere to go but out. There is a difference from 2016, because the last three years have given at least a glimpse of the chaos that awaits; if the nation as a whole decides to proceed in spite of that, then, however regretful I may be, Remainers will have run out of tricks.
2. Remain wins: but don't forget that even then the issue won't be technically settled forever. There is always the option of voting for a party with Leaving the EU as a firm part of its manifesto. If such a Party, filled with enthusiastic Leavers, ever wins a General Election and forms a government, then you would not only see the UK leaving as you wanted, but you'd see it done in the manner you voted for, too.