McCartney's purported "leadership" of the Beatles after Epstein's death owed as much, if not more, to John's unwillingness to continue the charade as anything else.
Or maybe that after touring ended, and until he fell under Yoko's influence, that he simply had no Big Ideas. (and as we know post Yoko John wasn't averse to the odd Big Idea.) Supposition yes, but I'm not trying to pass it off as fact.
Maybe Paul was embarrassed by some of his music (as he should have been, some of it was awful.)
But again, you seem to assume it's a given that John had the power to have "I Will" rejected. Perhaps, yes, if John and George and George Martin had had a word. Or maybe Paul would have dropped it himself.
I accept that Paul alone couldn't reject John's efforts. After all John managed to get Rev #9 past all three, plus George Martin. So if Paul had insisted that I Will should stay (and he would have been terribly stupid if he had) how do you know John could have said no? Any examples? Yesterday wasn't a "harder, group effort."
And you make Paul's efforts to keep the band alive sound like a bad thing. Would you rather he hadn't bothered and The Beatles story ended at Revolver?
ps - I agree by the way that I Will should go. It's fluff. But I don't think John had the power to make that happen. It would be Paul's (as it was his song) or the group's decision.
I agree my "political veto" comment was ill judged. But at that point you seemed to be insinuating that John had the final say on what The Beatles did, and nothing indicates that was the case.