The result in June 2016, albeit by a small margin, was a decision to leave. It is my understanding that there is no turning back on a referendum.
It would be a complete farce if you could have another crack of the whip.
However, there is a good argument to void that vote, if it can be concluded that the public were totally misled.
It is my belief that a large section of the British public were misled in forming their decision to vote to leave.
I have been the chair and major shareholder of public companies.
As a board, we were obliged, when sending out a prospectus to shareholders and the public, to have all comments and forecast made by us scrutinised line by line by auditors and lawyers in a very tough due diligence and verification process.
No such process exists for the claims politicians make to convince the public – who, by the way, rely on and trust them – to place their vote.
In some cases, misleading shareholders has resulted in prosecution and imprisonment.
Applying the public company principle, it would follow that those people who will be responsible for putting this country into five to 10 years of post-Brexit turmoil based on lies – such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove for the £350m lie on the red bus – should be imprisoned, or at least prosecuted.
On the eve of the Brexit vote, on 22 June 2016, I was invited by David Cameron to take the lead for the remain camp in The Great Debate, which took place on the BBC.
To this day, I kick myself for turning it down. At the time, I felt that I was not qualified enough to stand up and discuss the various intricacies of leaving or remaining in the EU. Instead, the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, took my position. He did the best he possibly could.
Having watched the debate, I was fuming that somebody did not ask Boris Johnson to put his hand on his heart, look down the lens and tell the British public that the £350m was a truthful statement.
One thing is for sure: I know that, in my forceful manner, I would have made him admit that he was lying. Who knows, perhaps that could have swung the vote.
Similarly, Gisela Stuart, a German immigrant who took advantage of our joining the EU in 1973 came here in 1974. She has flourished: she has become an MP, a mother of two and, I believe, a grandmother.
She is an immigrant who flourished and contributed, yet that night she stood in the Leave group criticising immigration by implying that 80 million Turks were about to come running to our country – a total lie.
She said: “It’s simply a statement of fact that uncontrolled immigration puts pressure on services.” I would say “Pot, kettle”.
We have no understanding of the negotiations taking place between us and the EU.
I hope and believe that a rabbit will be pulled out of the hat shortly.
Common sense must prevail that we get at least a trade deal.
I am a businessman and I sympathise in a way with the Prime Minister, who is possibly in a frustrating position of knowing how the negotiations are going but not being able to publicly disclose the status.
The media, bless them, make up their own stories that everything is going to be a disaster when in fact they do not know what is going on at all.
My experience in business when negotiating with another party is that you do not lay all your cards on the table; you have to keep your cards close to your chest.
One cannot keep the public at large in touch blow by blow. This would effectively destroy our negotiating power.
I seriously believe that the public were misled. For that reason, I believe the public should be entitled to a vote on the final negotiated terms.
Lord Sugar is a cross-bench peer who spoke in a House of Lords debate on Brexit and a People’s Vote. This is a full transcript. The entrepreneur presents The Apprentice on BBC1.