There are all sorts of stories about how Brexit might be annulled.
The most interesting one is how Scotland will veto it.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has vowed to protect Scotland against the "devastating" fallout of Brexit and hinted her government may use legal means to try to block Britain's departure from the EU....
In a round of broadcast interviews, she also said it was possible that the Scottish parliament may have to give its consent to laws to extricate Britain from the EU.
Asked whether she would consider asking Scottish MPs not to give that consent, she replied: "Of course."
Asked on the BBC if she could imagine the fury of British voters who had made the choice to leave the EU if the Scottish parliament blocked Brexit, Sturgeon said:
"I can, but it's perhaps similar to the fury of many people in Scotland right now as we face the prospect of being taken out of the European Union against our will."

I question both whether the fury "is the same" and whether Scotland can actually do that.
However, the consequences of Scottish politicians thwarting the will of a majority of British citizens would be devastating. It would encourage violence and extremism.
It would make much more political sense to demand a new independence referendum.

In a poll for Scotland's Sunday Post, ScotPulse found that 59 percent would vote for independence.

There is talk of Northern Ireland seeking independence as well.
The news media is portraying this as something tragic. I think of it as national self-determination, and a good thing.
The history of their forced alliance with England is one filled with exploitation and genocidal levels of murder.

There are three other methods of overturning Brexit being considered.

Members of Parliament vote against it
A re-do referendum
EU concessions

Each method has its problems.
Firstly, the referendum was non-binding, but the danger of ignoring a voter mandate means lots of politicians losing re-election.
A second referendum is possible, but it won't come from an online petition.
As for EU concessions...

Unlikely. So far all the indications are that Berlin, Paris and Brussels want a quick separation. “It’s not an amicable divorce, but it never really was a close love affair anyway,” said EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

The EU is being arrogant on this matter, and that's the primary problem. Working class troubles and concerns are being ignored and when the poor don't act according to the wishes of the elites they are ridiculed, as Glenn Greenwald explains.

Corrupt elites always try to persuade people to continue to submit to their dominance in exchange for protection from forces that are even worse. That’s their game. But at some point, they themselves, and their prevailing order, become so destructive, so deceitful, so toxic, that their victims are willing to gamble that the alternatives will not be worse, or at least, they decide to embrace the satisfaction of spitting in the faces of those who have displayed nothing but contempt and condescension for them.
There is no one, unifying explanation for Brexit, or Trumpism, or the growing extremism of various stripes throughout the West, but this sense of angry impotence — an inability to see any option other than smashing those responsible for their plight — is undoubtedly a major factor. As Bevins put it, supporters of Trump, Brexit, and other anti-establishment movements “are motivated not so much by whether they think the projects will actually work, but more by their desire to say FUCK YOU” to those they believe (with very good reason) have failed them.
Obviously, those who are the target of this anti-establishment rage — political, economic, and media elites — are desperate to exonerate themselves, to demonstrate that they bear no responsibility for the suffering masses that are now refusing to be compliant and silent. The easiest course to achieve that goal is simply to demonize those with little power, wealth, or possibility as stupid and racist: This is only happening because they are primitive and ignorant and hateful, not because they have any legitimate grievances or because I or my friends or my elite institutions have done anything wrong.
Because that reaction is so self-protective and self-glorifying, many U.S. media elites — including those who knew almost nothing about Brexit until 48 hours ago — instantly adopted it as their preferred narrative for explaining what happened, just as they’ve done with Trump, Corbyn, Sanders, and any number of other instances where their entitlement to rule has been disregarded. They are so persuaded of their own natural superiority that any factions who refuse to see it and submit to it prove themselves, by definition, to be regressive, stunted, and amoral.

Obviously this reaction will play well with the choir and places like DKos, but it won't change a single mind.
If even Brexit can't convince the EU to reform, then that proves the need for Brexit.

Interestingly, the fallout from Brexit is falling most heavily on Labour.

The political fallout from Britain’s stunning decision to leave the European Union intensified Sunday, with debate escalating inside the governing Conservative Party over choosing a successor to Prime Minister David Cameron and a coup attempt emerging against the leader of the opposition Labour Party....
Overnight came news that Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn had fired one of the most senior members of his leadership team, Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary. The sacking of Benn, whom Corbyn accused of plotting against him, led to the resignation of another member of Labour’s leadership team, with British news organizations reporting that additional resignations would be coming....
Corbyn faces a vote of no confidence among his parliamentary peers this week, but has vowed to stand firm against efforts to oust him. He enjoys widespread support from Labour’s rank-and-file membership, setting up what could be a potentially disastrous civil war within the party just a year after he was chosen to lead it.

The criticism of Corbyn is that he "didn't try hard enough" to endorse a losing measure that was rejected by Britain's working class.
When you think about it, that seems to be a very bizarre and out of touch criticism against the leader of a Labour Party. It also goes a long ways toward explaining why Labour lost so badly in the last election (before Corbyn).