IT’S nearly three years since the Brexit referendum. Unless you were under 18, outside the UK, or too angry to bother voting at all, you probably remember the ballot paper. And the options it listed did not include “martial law in the United Kingdom.” 

It’s a sign of the state we’re now in that when the Sunday Times reported on civil servants making plans for the possible introduction of martial law, it didn’t even put it on the front page. 

It quoted anonymous Whitehall sources saying that martial law had been discussed as one of several options for dealing with the breakdown of public order following a no-deal Brexit. 

The claim was a lot more believable than it should have been. On December 18, “Defence” Secretary Gavin Williamson told Parliament that 3,500 troops were in place to deal with “contingencies” if there is a no-deal Brexit. 

Williamson did not respond to calls from the Peace Pledge Union to clarify the role of such troops and to rule out using them for social control. 

On January 17, Williamson’s deputy Mark Lancaster quietly gave the official order to enable the calling up of reserves for up to a year to “mitigate the potential impacts” of leaving the EU. 

After discussions with the Peace Pledge Union, MPs including Plaid Cymru’s Jonathan Edwards and Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle have called on Gavin Williamson to rule out using armed forces for police functions or social control, and to give a clear statement about the truth of the Sunday Times rumours of martial law.

When journalists at the North Wales Daily Post asked the Ministry of Defence for a comment, they were told that there are “no plans” to use the army for public order but that it “remains available to support the civil authorities if necessary.” 

This waffly non-answer seems to mean: “We’re not actually planning to, but we might anyway.”

Admittedly, all-out martial law is unlikely, though the government’s failure to deny claims that civil servants are discussing it is very alarming. What is perhaps more likely is a scaled-down version of martial law, using the Civic Contingencies Act 2004. 

This vile piece of legislation allows the government to declare a state of emergency and to restrict key civil liberties. Ministers could legally suspend various rights and restrict the movements of individuals or the public as a whole. 

Such restrictions would need to be approved by Parliament — but only if they lasted for longer than 30 days. 

Many commentators assume that Williamson’s commitment of 3,500 troops is about ensuring that food and medicine can be transported in the event of shortages. If this is what he means, he needs to say so. He is still failing to do so. 

Even if this were the case, experienced civilian agencies would be better equipped than the military to deal with situations of this sort, if they received the sort of funding that Williamson and his allies in the right-wing press routinely demand for the armed forces. 

The proliferation of foodbanks in recent years is a reminder that this government is more skilled in causing food shortages than in alleviating them. 

Using troops for food distribution would also fuel the notion that the armed forces are the only institutions that can save us in a crisis. This feeds a militarist agenda that benefits only the ruling class and the far right. 

Militarism is a class issue. War is essentially a mechanism that allows the rich and powerful to profit from the sufferings of others, with the poorest usually suffering the most. 

Militarism not only promotes war, but related values of hierarchy, nationalism, hyper-masculinity and unquestioning obedience. It is a mechanism of social control.

The armed forces target working class young people for recruitment. Recruitment resources are disproportionately poured into the poorest areas. 

These young people are then abused through a process of military training which, in the words of Veterans for Peace, is designed to “remove the aversion to killing.” 

After being sent to contribute to death, destruction and consequent poverty around the world, they are often dumped into poverty when they return. 

Readers of this paper were reminded of this dreadful reality last week, when the front page reported on disabled RAF veteran Jonathan Williams, whose benefits were cut pretty much overnight thanks to the Tory austerity agenda. 

Poverty is both a cause and a consequence of war. Poverty and militarism feed off each continuously.

If troops are deployed onto the streets of Britain, we can be sure that they will not be evenly spread. There will not be many troops on the streets of Chipping Norton, or pacing the grounds of Eton. 

Working-class areas will be subject to much more military control, as will areas with known left-wing tendencies or with a higher than average number of black, Asian and minority ethnic residents.

The good news is that — unless all-out martial law is declared — armed forces have no legal authority over civilians. If they are allocated to police functions they can only carry them out if the rest of us agree to go along with them. If we refuse to co-operate there will be little they can do. 

Jonathan Edwards MP last week submitted an early day motion — a sort of petition of MPs — demanding answers from Williamson. If your MP has not signed it, you can drop them a quick email or phone call to ask them to sign up to EDM 2075. You can also tweet about #NoTroopsOnTheStreets, raise the issue in your union branch and make clear that you will not co-operate with military authority.     

Militarism is about class and control. Everyone on the left, both Leavers and Remainers, needs to resist it. 

Symon Hill works for the Peace Pledge Union. See www.ppu.org.uk.