The UK's aversion to ID cards is weird as they are perfectly happy with HMRC having a database entry for them for example, so the government already has a record of everyone.
Those are two different things. HMRC may have numbers, but you're not required to get them tattooed on your arm. Which is the ID card scheme in fact is.
The sad thing is that the UK has inflicted all the negative aspects of ID requirements on people without the consolation prize of a universal free ID.
If you have a job, rent a house, or have a bank account in the UK, you must have a government ID at the moment. Because people wanted that requirement barrier built so it could be used against immigrants.
You might as well say we should not have police because if they're required to beat you up if they saw you commit a crime then that would be bad. It would, but they're not, and it's the people who would intend that who you should oppose.
It's sad that you have to post that comment. Should it surprise me that advocates of this do not know how ID cards are actually implemented, even in countries nearby?
How is having an ID card a requirement to tattoo a number on your arm? Nobody is advocating for mandatory "ID please" checkpoints everywhere, merely providing a standardized way to pass through existing checkpoints (AML/KYC in the bank, etc).
> a) it makes no sense to advocate for them prior, there’s a natural sequence of dependencies.
We had that back when the government made it mandatory to have ID to be employed or have a bank account or rent a house. Not having an ID scheme didn't prevent it being made a requirement.
We had a trial run of "papers please" just a couple of years ago. You were forbidden from traveling more than 1km from your house lest you get fined 1500 euros.