It depends. I know that answer doesn't cut it but it does depend on the circumstances. That is whether the "Whip was on" or not.

Political parties are guided by their constitutions and parliamentary procedure so in my not so humble opinion, if the Whip was on, Mr. Key (FNM) Member of Parliament has a decision to make, whether he voted his conscience or not.

If the Whip was on, he should resign from the FNM and either sit as an independent or re-join the PLP. Or even resign from Parliament, although I do not see that happening.

Now should he decide not to follow proper ethical bahaviour as a result of his position, then the FNM has a decision to make.

As an aside, if the FNM lose one more seat, what difference does it make?

Complicating all this even further is whether Parliament really did screw up the naming and suspension process by not properly following the House Rules.

If that process was legally flawed, what Key did becomes irrelevant for now.

The essential substance causing all this is the PLP Government not clarifying matters relating to a wealthy expatriat appearing to drag them to this debate by their collective noses.

This foreigner has single handedly derailed an important debate on stem cell with his antics and pronouncements – presumably his lion head walking cane was not enough to cast a spell on everyone?

So when Parliament resumes it behooves both political parties to settle down with all the political posturing.

This protracted mess is preventing Parliament dealing with the far more troublesome issue of fiscal problems.

At the end of it all, Mr. Key has a decision to make or one might have to be made for him.

Will the political circus continue or will common sense prevail?