There’s been a loud and constant preoccupation with Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position, which took on a new round of analysis in the media this week after he announced he would remain neutral in a future Brexit referendum if Labour wins the election.

The announcement – the first time Corbyn has clarified his position – came during a BBC Question Time leaders’ special programme.

After months of confusion, Labour’s position is now, at least, clear; if they win the general election they will renegotiate a Brexit deal with the EU within three months of coming to power and will then put this deal to the public in a referendum alongside an option to remain in Europe, within six months.

But while many Labour members are pro-remain, Corbyn has always refused to be drawn on how he would campaign. He had previously suggested Labour’s position would be determined at a special conference once a new Brexit deal had been agreed. The Tories jumped on his refusal to declare a side after Corbyn and Johnson’s head to head debate last week, calling him indecisive and weak. Elsewhere, critics also rounded on Corbyn for refusing to pick sides.

But I have not yet heard one reason why his support of one view over the other would be advantageous to Labour, or indeed the country.

In fact, with such a seismic issue that has consumed society and caused so much division, it is wise and responsible for the man who wishes to be Prime Minister and unite people to remain neutral.

It certainly avoids the risk David Cameron took as Prime Minister when he decided to campaign (badly) for Remain, feeling he had no alternative but to resign after finding himself on the losing decide of the 2016 referendum.

The manner in which Conservatives have condemned Corbyn for his position simply serves as proof of their irritation that he is not taking the bait to be shoe-horned into aligning himself with one view or another, as they have.

Personally I believe that strategically it is a very clever decision. Who’s to know if Corbyn and Labour are actually being strategic on this issue or whether it is in fact Corbyn’s very personal decision? He is, after all, a longstanding Europsceptic. But an article he wrote for the Guardian newspaper back in September gave the strongest hint that he would take a neutral stance on the issue and refrain from campaigning in a second referendum, pitching himself instead as a neutral negotiator, and pledging to “carry out whatever the people decide, as a Labour prime minister.”

Either way, it feels like the right move.

While the Conservative party has positioned itself as the cheerleader of Brexit by any means and the Liberal Democrats sit on the other end of the scale, asserting in their manifesto that they will revoke article 50 and forget about Brexit altogether, ignoring the fears and opinions of millions, Corbyn has prepared the ground for putting the decision back into the hands of the people and to be in a position to carry out the result of a referendum, whatever that may be.

I can understand people’s frustrations over Corbyn’s neutrality and unwillingness to come out in favour of one side or another. In a utopia I would love to hear him back Remain, to shout from the rooftops that it is by far the best deal available. But that only serves those who want to stay in Europe and ignores all those who don’t. An equal and fair society doesn’t ignore half of the population.

After 3-and-a-half years, we live in an even more polarised society where people are entrenched in their views about Brexit, irrespective of traditional party lines. That is, after all, why the Brexit Party has seen increased success – because many leave voters – Conservative and Labour – have felt politically homeless. Corbyn’s picking one side over another would only serve to alienate whole swathes of the country and would do nothing to move us forward to take decisions on so many other important issues affecting communities across the UK. By remaining a neutral voice, he is showing leadership qualities by listening to the views of everyone. He is proposing giving people two viable and sensible options that, in the current climate, are the best hope we have of bringing the country together while also ensuring economic stability.