Is it possible, just possible, that the Speaker has made a decision based on his understanding of how best to apply the rules?
This feeding of the myth that everybody acts solely out of a desire for their outcome really is a nasty bit of projection from those that do do that.
This has been a defining issue in the last 3 years. Govt and press assumed that EU27 were bluffing, trying to pull a fast one, holding out until the end, etc., etc because that sort of chicanery is what they would do. Projection.
And it goes together with the projection that anyone attempting to act fairly, apply rules or laws, advise impartially or speak truth to power is doing it from some evil underlying motive. A trick to help remain, or a subterfuge to hurt the govt, or Leave, or the Labour Party.
You then get the cycle where, because anyone acting honourably will be accused of this anyway, fewer do, and the downward spiral of standards in public life takes another turn.
Bollocks to discussing whether a decision was right in light of the facts, the rules, the laws, or basic decency. What is he really up to? There must be something. He must be at it. They all are.
And we end up here. A failing state with the public discourse of a kindergarten.
You can follow @GuitarMoog.