The Queen, a gracious Head of State, is surrounded by soldiers, changing guard, being inspected, sloping arms and marching round her. She emphatically does not need them, but they are history, we love them and they can stand very still. Yet, the symbol remains real. Still the military are inside UK Governments, and the peace protesters, as we might call them, are on the outside at Greenham Common, marching against the Iraq War, or waving placards outside arms fairs. It is the military who defends the State and peace and disarmament are outside, and in some sense disloyal to the State.

Why is peace on the outside and the military on the inside? Governments have been very protective of their right to declare war. We need it to protect you, they declare. And people, or even Parliament, are not to be trusted over complex decisions. In the past, citizens who were likely to be called up and die, would not easily vote for War. The atmosphere has changed, as we discuss in a moment, but the UK is still one of the least democratic on this issue, as George Eaton set out last year.

A 2010 survey of 25 European democracies found that 11 had “very strong” parliamentary war-making powers: “Prior parliamentary approval required for each government decision relating to the use of military force; parliament can investigate and debate use of military force.” Four countries had “strong” powers (prior approval of military action in all but exceptional circumstances), two had “medium” powers (the ability for parliament to demand troop withdrawal and to investigate and debate military force) and four had “weak” powers (parliamentary notification required). Only four countries (the UK, France, Cyprus and Greece) had “very weak” powers: no parliamentary approval or debate required. ( New Statesman, 11/4/2018)

Both George Brown and William Hague committed themselves to enshrining in law the Parliamentary right to vote on going to war, but it has not happened. Democracy isn’t quite trusted. There is now an “expectation” that Parliament will be consulted about War, but that, too, is problematic. Parliament did vote over the Iraq War, but with some strong arm twisting and using the apparatus of Government. Most would agree that if it had been admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction and if the state apparatus of propaganda had not been so strong in relation to the media, the War would have had little support, and most now recognize it as a wrong war.

But now, again, the military is on the inside, as it is with most Conservative Governments, and Jeremy Corbyn, who has been critical of UK military activity is presented as a dangerous outsider, another example of peace campaigners who are labelled dangerous. It is never clear quite why peace is dangerous, but the rhetoric settles over Conservative governed Britain.

Perhaps the lesson is that the peace people, though democratic means and honest persuasion, need to re-present the military, the idea of “defence” and disarmament, not as protest, but as a necessary reform of the inner working of politics. It is not good enough for peace to be on the outside. War obviously does not work anywhere, and it is time politics, inside and out, came up with an alternative. Maybe it needs turning inside out.