Because MPs are forbidden from resigning, they disqualify themselves by pretending to become Crown Stewart and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead - a procedural workaround that has evolved over the past 400 years and was famously imposed upon an upset Gerry Adams.
It is tempting to wonder if all debates in Stormont will one day begin by pretending to appoint a speaker.
The law says such an appointment must be a new assembly’s “first business”.
Stormont’s standing orders say any debate on the appointment must be “relevant to the election” of the speaker.
Yet the two-hour debate this Monday touched on the protocol, the need for Stormont’s return, reform of power-sharing, the reasons for the last collapse, the cost of living crisis, hospital waiting lists, rents in Belfast and the prospect of a teachers strike. There was even time for a row about DUP contacts with loyalists and Sinn Fein’s relationship to the IRA. After the vote, former UUP leader Mike Nesbitt - one of the candidates vetoed by the DUP - made a point of order on the International Gymnastics Federation barring some Northern Ireland athletes from the Commonwealth Games.
All this was allowed by the acting speaker, the UUP’s Alan Chambers, in the chair by virtue of being the oldest MLA.
What is considered ‘relevant’ is clearly evolving at speed. Monday was the second attempt at electing a speaker, 17 days after the first.
Sinn Féin had summoned members back with a recall petition, which any 30 MLAs can raise at any time for any reason, as long as they include nominating a speaker as the first order of business.
So we now have a de facto shadow assembly, which can convene itself whenever it wants to discuss if not formally debate whatever it likes. The DUP has to turn up, otherwise the UUP has sufficient numbers to elect a speaker without it. Realistically, a recall petition could be arranged on a weekly basis.
Stormont’s strange new existence reveals the unforeseen power of the rule changes agreed in New Decade, New Approach and put into law in January this year.
They have transformed the system more profoundly than the St Andrews agreement 16 years ago.
There is still enough scope for one large party to be obstructive but also new means and incentives for everyone else to seek ways around it.
Previously, the executive and the assembly would both collapse within two weeks of having no first or deputy first minister. Although recall debates could be attempted everything would collapse again afterwards, as happened in 2019 when the DUP summoned MLAs back to discuss abortion.
Today, caretaker ministers remain in office for up to six months. The assembly is meant to operate as normal during that period to hold the ministers to account, so it sees itself as having an entitlement and a purpose to cling on, even if denied a speaker. Last month, it was quickly established that MLAs can still submit written questions to ministers, preserving a key part of the assembly’s role.
UUP health minister Robin Swann has since asked other parties to nominate MLAs to question him, which would create a shadow assembly health committee. Other such committees could follow.
It remains the case the DUP could bring everything down by withdrawing all its caretaker ministers, as could Sinn Féin. The new rules require the secretary of state to call an election within three months if the executive lacks credible cross-community representation.
The DUP is not fully withdrawing because it wants to send a signal to unionist voters of causing just enough trouble to get concessions on the protocol and not enough to disrupt public services or the economy.
In Monday’s debate, Edwin Poots was reduced to boasting that the caretaker period “we negotiated during previous talks is proving useful in that people still have government”.
This reflects that the DUP fears the unpopularity of a full collapse. So does Sinn Féin, judging by how it is distancing itself from its recent three-year walk-out.
If the DUP’s plan is to trigger another election after getting an apparent ‘win’ on the protocol, it cannot be seen to have abandoned its posts, nor - as it turns out - can it silence the assembly in the meantime.
The wider debate on Stormont reform is framed as introducing more normal politics, by preventing any one party bringing down devolution. We are closer to that point than expected, even if coming at it from an oblique angle.
