So, on the biggest question of the day, if not our generation, one wannabe PM is hoping to stay clear of the fight and remain neutral.
PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW:
The Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is doing his best to steer clear of the Brexit debate and therefore claim to be staying neutral right up to the point of the results of a second EU referendum, if he somehow becomes our Prime Minister.
Then he says he'll just implement the result, whatever it is.
And this strategy he claims, will mend the nation.
And the obvious truth, well obvious to anyone with a couple of brain cells, is that this strategy will just rip the country apart – and worse, not in to just two pieces but into many.
And on last night's Question Time Leaders special, Jeremy Corbyn's nice old grandpa act was exposed as a fraud to everyone, as he metaphorically had his pants pulled down in front of the nation not only over his neutral Brexit stance but also over his handling of antisemitism within the Labour Party.
But not only is his policy of staying Brexit beige completely flawed, so are his plans to renegotiate a deal with the EU within three months …. and then to hold this referendum of his between accepting his deal or Remaining in the EU, within a further three months, just six months after taking office.
Anyway, how can he possibly re-negotiate a deal with the EU if he's neutral? What silliness is that?
What's his plan? To march in and neutrally demand of those Eurocrats that the UK must have full single market and customs union access, without paying in. But to also have a seat at the EU table in trade talks as if we were a full member – and by the way we must be able to do what trade deals we like with whichever country we like as well?
How does that work? How do you negotiate such a deal when you are ambivalent to it? How do you drive a situation forward, if you're in neutral gear? Maybe that's Corbyn's genius, let everyone else decide everything and take the credit for it. He has tried to make an art form, no a science, out of seeming neutral, but just ends up looking indecisive.
Brussels would echo to hoots of laughter for many a year over all of that.
No, the truth is that Corbyn and his cronies will only be able to get a skeleton argument together in those three months that would entail the UK paying in as a full member, maintaining the full movement of workers, a fully level playing field, but with no voting rights, no seat at any table and no independent trade policy.
Eurocrats will make sure that Corbyn's deal is far worse than full EU membership, in the comfortable knowledge that an incredulous nation will be forced to either stay at home or vote to Remain in that EU referendum.
Mend a nation?
And as for this whole nonsense of neutrality. What's he going to claim, that he's got conviction in his own neutrality?
You can imagine him at breakfast and faced with the dilemma of having his egg either fried, boiled or maybe scrambled, can't you?
Would he want to fry, boil and scramble it all at the same time, then eat whatever the end result was? Or would he throw it open to the vote by phoning Diane Abbott perhaps and asking for her view. Not that she would know anything about his breakfasting habits, of course.
Corbyn wants to stay firmly on the fence and lead from the rear throughout the whole period up to his dangerous referendum, in the vain hope that he can appeal to both sides with his ludicrous approach to not fulfilling the results of the 2016 EU referendum.
He is putting himself forward as a national leader, but won't take a public position on Brexit, the greatest issue of the day.
But, in truth, I wouldn't confuse this neutrality with indecision. Corbyn is, of course, adopting this neutral stance as a devious but poorly disguised tactic to try and keep his hands unsullied by the Brexit issue.
But then to put all the blame on the people of the UK, when the result of the vote on those two unacceptable options put to them, is announced – and more anger, splits and division inevitably follows.
Personally I think our Jeremy should stay firmly neutral, not just on Brexit, but on everything.
In fact the best thing he could decide to do is drop his whole clumsy Marxist manifesto and just declare neutrality in all things.
Especially where certain religions and our armed forces are concerned.
In fact, if he remained neutral on the critical matter of the defence of our nation, it would at least take some of the sting out of his decades long support of our enemies.
And wouldn't it be great to see him take a neutral stance on the general election itself and stop campaigning? Actually no, every day he campaigns the larger the hole he digs for himself – keep digging I say.
I also want to ask the question, why is no-one in the press questioning Jeremy Corbyn hard on his manifesto proposals to give the vote to anyone over the age of 16 that resides in this country?
Not just UK citizens over the age of sixteen.
No, all those over the age of 16 that reside in the UK.
And residence means:
Either you've been in the country for 183 days during a tax year or you've had a home in the UK for 91 or more consecutive days and spent 30 days in it within a tax year.
So, for those that claim they are worried, for example, about Russian influence in UK elections would no longer be able to complain about Russian oligarchs spending money on UK election campaigning and co-ordinating their fellow nationals voting in our elections, would they?
In fact, wouldn't it then become legitimate for foreign governments to engage in our elections on the basis that they were just looking after the interests of their citizens temporarily residing in the UK?
Would we end up with the Electoral Commission allowing campaign spending limits for countries with dodgy records on democracy like Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela – while people were flown over to take up residence in marginal constituencies in specially purchased halls of residence, just in time for an election or referendum?
If you think about it, what better way to influence or conduct foreign policy with the UK than to pay for their people to live here and openly and legally work to undermine us?
The typical and ridiculous results of open borders thinking.
And when you look at Corbyn's plan to hold a referendum within six months, you only have to read the article in Brexit Central by the Tory politician Sir Bernard Jenkin, to realise how legislatively dodgy that ambition is.
As he says, Corbyn's referendum policy would drive a coach and horses through the timetable laid out in the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000 – which makes the whole thing a total constitutional outrage right from the start.
As far as I can see, when looking at Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum fuelled Labour Party, all I see is a group of people who want to take everything in the country into public ownership, open the borders and give the world the vote on how we live and treat them all in our now International Health Service.
Any despotic foreign powers out there with ambitions over our nation, have no need to worry about resistance with a Corbyn government.
No, they could invade just by turning up and Labour would be there handing out the house allocations, benefits and polling cards.
And anyone of us that even raised questions over it would be subject to a vilification of epic proportions by Corbyn's social justice warrior comrades, stocked up on nut roasts and Soy Lattes and armed with loud hailers and milkshakes. Whilst being protected from rebuke in their mobile safe space units.
No wonder the prognosis for Labour in the upcoming election is that they are facing an electoral armageddon.