Thank you, Madam Chair.
Pursuing the discussion of conventions a little further, my understanding of a convention—and I am prepared to be corrected if I have understood them incorrectly—is that fundamentally what distinguishes a convention from any other principle is that it is enforceable by public opinion. If public opinion is willing to tolerate a divergence from what had appeared to be a convention, then in fact it wasn't actually a convention, if public opinion is not willing to accept that.
I don't mean public opinion in the sense of public opinion polls; I mean public opinion as expressed at a more fundamental level—for example, at the next election. Then it suggests that the convention either exists or doesn't exist based on that. Do you understand convention differently than that, or do you understand it the same way I do?