I think this hypothetical question doesn't help to clarify the issue, because such a vote should never be possible in a country in which an individual's liberty can be taken away only if he/she has been found guilty of a crime, and which doesn't have the death penalty.
I disagree. The example was relevant because it shows up the fallacy of the 'more than 50% voted for it therefore we must all do it without question' kind of argument that many on the Brexit side keep putting forward. My question was in direct response to a poster who appeared to be making exactly that kind of argument.
The obvious moral problem with my example is that it would represent a (hypothetical) vote by a majority to persecute a minority, which is clearly wrong, and I'm sure most of us would agree that's not what democracy should be about. In fact the idea that what the majority vote for should always be done is - in political theory - known, not as 'democracy' but as 'tyranny of the majority' and my example shows up exactly the reason for that. Far too many people on the Brexit side are abusing the word 'democracy' by using it to refer to what is clearly actually 'tyranny of the majority'.
Although my example was hypothetical, there's a good case for arguing that it's not too dissimilar to the Brexit vote, because the Brexit vote also represents a vote by a small majority [*]whose effect is likely to be to remove rights from a minority: In this case, the minority consists of those who have moved or plan to move between the UK and other European countries, who potentially are looking at their right to live in their chosen country being destroyed. In the case of those who have already migrated, many fact the real worry that they may in a couple of years time be prevented from living in their adopted home - and there are already some fairly horrific stories going round of the impact that is having on individual people. I personally believe that a fair Government would recognise that that is wrong, and cannot morally be justified by a 'more than 50% voted for it so we must all accept it' argument.
[*] Although given the very well-aired arguments about the British Government's somewhat arbitrary decisions about who was allowed to vote - most notably, excluding EU citizens from voting, even when those citizens have been living in the UK for decades and so clearly are permanent residents here who should have had the right to a say in their own futures, it's questionable whether it really was a vote by a majority of the adult population. But that's another argument.
My view is that because people have a right to their opinion and to express it in a lawful way, anyone who wanted to stay in the EU is entitled to say so. I have no doubt that the Leavers would have continued to campaign to leave, if the vote had gone the other way. After there's been a General Election, and one political party has formed a government, no-one suggests that those who voted for another party must keep quiet and accept everything the new government proposes.
I'm glad you think so - and I would agree with you completely there. But, sadly, there are many on the Brexit side who appear not to agree with that, and it is to those people that my hypothetical question was aimed.