You are reading a single comment by @itsbruce and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I also don't see why it is such an issue that he stays neutral. In a lot of ways it makes sense.
Except that he's talking about trying to get a better withdrawal deal and a lot of people don't believe the EU has any more patience for agreeing that with him than they do with Bojo. That is to say, none. No-Deal or Revoke as the only options may be the polarisation of politics but at this late stage they may also be the only two choices left.
itsbruce-
It's a bit of a "I wouldn't start from here", situation. But the point I'm trying to make is that if you had the oratory and PR credibility you could make the following case:
- "The ref was close. I am the leader of the country so will not come down on one side as God has sent me to unite the country."
Everything else follows from there;
- we need to get the best deal - therefore I will appoint the best people to get a good deal that protects x, y, z. Because I am neutral I can make sure that we wouldn't have the same situation as with Hamond, where the treasury were prevented from contingency planning.
- We will give the people the final say - as I am impartial I will not push through a deal without making sure you the people are ok with the final deal.
- "The ref was close. I am the leader of the country so will not come down on one side as God has sent me to unite the country."
hugo7
I also don't see why it is such an issue that he stays neutral. In a lot of ways it makes sense.
The problem is the same as ever - his personality and delivery.
Someone like Blair or Cameron would have the ability to steadfastly hold the line of non-partisanship and both own it and sell it.