The right of debate.

As you can guess I love to hear well enunciated argument and, by chance I had tuned into the Parliamentary Channel and had the opportunity to hear Zac Goldsmith the young Conservative MP call his fellow members of parliament, on both sides of the House, scoundrels.
Of course he used parliamentary language but the aim was clear, he held the members of the House, with a few exceptions in such a poor light that he was scathing in his criticism.
The Bill which was being discussed was the opportunity to recall a member of parliament by the members constituents.
MPs, having been elected are beyond the law in many respects (whilst in the House) and, in so far as their day to day responsibilities, retain their position as the parliamentary representative of their specific electorate, irrespective of how they do the job. With all the shenanigans by MPs over the last few years, including fiddling their expenses, dishonest submission of their financial position and disregarding their responsibilities in the work of being an MP,  Parliament is being asked to offer the public the opportunity to question their MP and if found at fault to ask the MP to stand down.
The Government have sought to water down the initial weight of the penalty and to take away from the public the right to demand his or her suspension but rather place the decision, as to whether an MP had failed to maintain a specific standard, back with his fellow MPs. (One of the difficulties here is that there is no job description for an MP)This is clearly much the same as we see in many professional bodies where the professional is tried and tested by his own and is open therefore to special pleading by his peers.
Most of you will think, so what, especially if you live overseas yet I was captivated by the measured display, particularly by Zac Goldsmith, and the slow evolution of the conditions we place on Parliament,a place which is supposed to be a gathering (along with a court of law) of the highest in the land.
Parliament has been found to repeatedly fail its citizens and the recall proposal is one brick in the wall to shore up the important foundation of democracy.
Language and the clarity of the presentment of a view I find fascinating.
Having sat in the public gallery of the Old Bailey listening to the Appeal Court judges question and often deride barristers as the barristers appeal a legal argument. it is great verbal theatre. The twisting and turning the rephrasing and the use or misuse of context. One can virtually hear the razor sharp minds at play.
Debate as Plato and Socrates would have us believe is one of the finest tools in our civilised armour. It clarifies and illuminates everything of importance and acts as an antidote to the force to arms, no bad thing I would say.