[ghusto]

Was reading through your post, finding it difficult to find fault with anything you were saying, but something wasn't sitting right. And then ...

> I'm certain it's worked well in other countries

It has! In the Netherlands for example, it's just an incredibly convenient system, and if there's anything dodgy going on I'm not aware of it.

So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands? Genuine question, because I really don't know. My only guess is that the people of the Netherlands hold their politicians to account, whereas nothing ever seems to happen to UK politicians whose corruption is so severe that they're sometimes literally criminal.

[dannyobrien]

So the Netherlands may not be the best example to use as a positive example here.

Notoriously, the national identity system was used during World War II as a system for discovering and eliminating the Jewish community[1]. The lessons learned from that are a frequent topic of discussion in civil liberties groups, and the Dutch experience is often cited, both global conversations and within the Netherlands -- e.g. On Liberation Day 2015, Bits of Freedom held its annual Godwin Lecture on the risks of prioritising ID efficiency over civil liberties[2].

It may be that special protections were coded into the current system to prevent this from happening again, I don't know the details.

Certainly, the reputation for how obligatory papers have been (mis)used in mainland Europe since Napoleonic times have fed into the anglo world's suspicion around introducing similar regulations[3]. There are several recurring memes around how compulsory documents are a sign of an authoritarian environment.

[1] - https://jck.nl/en/agenda/identity-cards-and-forgeries

[2] - https://www.bitsoffreedom.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Valjean

[3uler]

When I moved to the Netherlands I was shocked to find out you have to maintain a registered address with the government.

The government also decides how many non-family members can register at an address, so in Amsterdam it is common for people to remain registered at there parents while subletting a room in an apartment.

You also get a DigiD which very convenient but also terrifying, especially when I walk around my neighborhood and see plaque’s in the ground for the victims of the holocaust who lived here.

My Dutch girlfriend does not believe me when I tell here that you don’t have to register where you live with the government in the anglophone world. It’s just so engrained in the society that anything else seems absurd.

[Alphaeus]

Here in New Zealand, you're required to be enrolled to vote, even if you never intend to actually vote. Enrolling requires an address. I imagine it's similar in Australia, where actually voting is required by law.

I believe in New Zealand other government agencies aren't allowed to access your data without your consent though.

[3uler]

The Electoral Roll is quite different though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_roll

[conorflan]

My response as to the difference is the 1998 Good Friday agreement. Something that has already been branded as the Brit Card is simply something that wouldn't work in Northern Ireland, and that the name passed any scrutiny say an awful lot.

Ireland is not Britain, and people from Northern Ireland can chose to identify as British, Irish or Both by birthright.

A "Brit Card" is not something a significant portion of people would want.

I personally am more disgusted by the nationalistic naming, but I also don't like the idea of needing a smartphone or my walle when walking.

If these aren't true details then the messaging has been poor, per form, and needs to be addressed, quickly.

[umanwizard]

Irish and British citizenship are de facto equivalent throughout the UK: any Irish person can simply decide to turn up in London without getting any kind of visa or asking any permission from anyone and live, work, or basically do anything a British person is allowed to do. So I’m curious how this will affect Irish people more broadly, not just in NI. Will they need to apply for this card?

[physarum_salad]

The common travel area + Brit_card might result in an interesting pattern where ID is by association rather than territorial location. For instance, as nationalists reject it and use only IRE/EU equivalents where possible. The passport is somewhat similar already. Would people reject services and jobs in N.I.? Completely possible and it already happens with people working "down south" aka down the road.

The civil liberties concerns, particularly in N.I. (historically speaking), are also important to consider. There is quite a high capacity for discriminatory practices in the region from all angles.

On the other side. The British government are lowering themselves to the position of "just another app on my phone". A system riddled with viruses, cyber attacks, etc. Further, what is to stop groups simply setting up and alternative ID system running on btc or something in the future...if this becomes the norm? At first it would be useless and a farce. Later a complete separate system.

Anyway, horrible idea all round. They clearly have not thought this through. Paper ids and loose associations are things I am a fan of in the anglophone world.

[KoolKat23]

You will not need to carry it around with you.

It also seems it'll actually be called Digital ID by the government, this is more a marketing tool, BritCard.

(Just clarifying if it helps, I see some misinformation out there).

[t14000]

Because they pinky promise? It'll be required to produce one like producing a driving license is required, but you don't need to have it with you. It'll be required because pubs/bars etc will require it. It'll not be required like giving a traffic stop breath sample is not required or like giving up your password is not required.

Imagine it was called IrishID or similar, help you to have empathy for how half of NI residents might feel about Brit-anything?

[KoolKat23]

I guess it depends on its design (does it set up the dystopian infrastructure or not) and then more so on the legislation around it. It's already not uncommon to need your passport for work, making it a law to produce for any work would be the actual thing that changes this.

I get your point about IrishID, but be realistic, none of this is surprising considering the current state of things. I could make some controversial statements in this regard but I'll avoid the flames (I sympathise with you before you place me in the wrong box).

[physarum_salad]

Huh? Everyone carries their phone everywhere and an ID card on an app is carried everywhere. When you stay at a hotel you might have to produce it, go to a doctors appointment,... and so on

[KoolKat23]

Huh? In countries like Italy it's actually mandatory to have a form of identification on you when in public, this isn't the case.

[physarum_salad]

The "brit_card" is on your phone and you will carry it everywhere. It is also a walking surveillance beacon and hacking target.

[Aeolun]

I don’t think the current ID structure has any field for religious or racial history. It’s simply a unique number assigned to a person at birth.

[JetSetIlly]

The census form in the UK requires disclosure of religion and ethnicity. It would be relatively easy to merge census data with ID.

I might trust this government not to do that, but I don't trust a future government (because I don't know who that will be).

[heavenlyblue]

how would the existence of this card make it easier to pursue you if you're let's say, Jewish? Doesn't passport/driving license already have thisv

[JetSetIlly]

Maybe it doesn't make it any easier but your question does remind us that cataloguing and categorising people can be dangerous. I accept that there are good reasons that the state could use this information, but we should also be alert to possible abuses.

Without looking, I honestly don't know if the passport and driving licence lists this information. But the census certainly does.

[heavenlyblue]

I mean the issue is that British people are so uptight about the government id card when a) oyster/credit card allows somebody to track all of their movement b) there's plenty of information collection that combined can be used against you c) driving license is de facto gov id at the moment. The ship had sailed, you are fighting against the wrong thing and that's why this battle will be lost.

[jonex]

It's the difference between proportional voting vs winner takes it all. In the latter case you can't really hold politicians accountable, as you will have to choose between effectively throwing your vote away or voting for the one opposition candidate, that often will be just as bad.

While the UK have some level of representativeness, each circuit has a winner takes it all structure, making change quite hard to achieve on a larger scale.

[HPsquared]

This might be a "grass is greener" thing. Do elected representatives actually have higher approval rating, or enact policies that better fit with public opinion, under proportional systems? Sure it'd probably make things a little better, but it won't actually solve anything hard, I think. All Western countries are struggling (and mostly failing) to deal with the same problems regardless of details like electoral system.

[ghusto]

With proportionate representation you get what _should_ happen, in my opinion, which is sometimes nothing. If the coalition can't decide on something, then it doesn't happen, which is the correct outcome because not enough people agree about it. It represents the people (who also can not agree on it).

The alternative is a decision that most people don't agree with.

[BobaFloutist]

That sounds like kind of a mirror of some of peoples biggest complaints regarding bureaucracy and committees. Deadlock can not only be worse than an imperfect solution, it can be weaponized by a minority to exert outsized power and extract otherwise unthinkable concessions. We see this sometimes in the US House, where more fringe or radical groups within parties can block the literally functioning of the actual country, safe in their assumptions that the two parties will not form a majority coalition and that the parties as a whole will take more damage from the fallout than the radical groups.

I'm not saying that that makes the system worse, mind you. I'm not even saying you're wrong that it's a better system. I just think anyone who thinks any one system is the easy, obvious fix to fair and just representational government is either shortsighted, or has different priorities than I do.

[KoolKat23]

That's ironically just something the British government used to pride themselves on, Pragmatism.

If it's important enough or dysfunctional enough a quick decision will be taken. There's clearly deadlock in first past post too, look at the US, if neither party advocates for it at all, it gets nowhere.

[HPsquared]

My view is it's always organised elites making the decisions, no matter the system. Nominally left-wing parties often make brazen right-wing moves, and vice-versa. The votes that matter are those of the MPs, Congress members etc. which are always influenced by a range of factors and organised factions. That's the actual decision-making mechanism.

[actionfromafar]

It’s the organized elites, true, but they aren’t a monolithic block either. In a proportional system they also must spread their influence on many parties. This is a good thing. With a single party there is a greater risk of a cordyceps infection taking over, see Republicans.

[nostrademons]

IMHO the simple change that would have the biggest effect on the American political system would be to require Congresspeople to live full-time in their districts and conduct all official business over videoconference and e-mail. Lots of behavioral science has shown that the biggest generator of trust and allegiance is physical proximity and face-to-face interactions. Make all reps have their face to face interactions with their constituents and maybe they will actually start representing their constituents. It also makes lobbying a lot less economical (instead of hiring one lobbyist that can have lunch with 435 representatives, you would need 435 lobbyists, or at least 435 plane trips) and gerrymandering a bit less practical (there's a decent chance the rep would no longer live in the district and be forced to give up their seat).

That and ensuring a bidirectional feedback mechanism between the executive and legislative branch, so that laws that aren't enforced by an administration fall off the books, and presidents that don't enforce the laws lose their job. Right now, the legal corpus of the U.S. is a constantly-accreting body, which means that no matter what the President wants to do, they can find some law somewhere to justify it, and then anything they don't want to do, they just say "We don't have the resources to enforce this". This gives the President all the power. They should be a servant to the law, not its arbiter.

[jacquesm]

They are influenced by money.

[gargan]

It's the opposite of what you say. Proportional representation isn't accountable because you don't know what coalition you're voting for - coalitions are done in backrooms after the election. Winner takes all is more accountable because the coalitions are done before the election (aka political parties). Parties are made up of different factions and they're agreed before the election.

[phatfish]

I guess you don't live in the UK, because winner takes all is far worse for backroom deals. The deals just end up being between factions within the same party!

Deals and bargaining all happen AFTER a party takes power and completely hidden until a government can't pass their own bills like the Labour attempt to reform welfare.

With proportional representation the deals are made in order to form a government, BEFORE it has power, and are between separate political parties.

Sure there may be agreements that are not all made public, but these are much harder to keep in the "backroom".

[4ndrewl]

You take what happened in the two elections previously (and I know technically we don't vote for PMs, but they drive the agenda of the party).

2015 we voted for Cameron, ended up with May then Johnson 2019 we voted for Johnson, ended up with Truss(!!) then Sunak(!)

[TheOtherHobbes]

This time everyone voted for Starmer and got friend-of-Epstein Mandelson via McSweeney as a cut-out.

PMs don't drive the agenda. The UK is one of the most corrupt developed countries in the world. The people driving the agenda are billionaire and multi-millionaire donors.

PM is a sales job, not a strategy job, and increasingly ridiculous PMs have been selected because the donors have had enough of liberal democracy as a concept. If it stops working - which it pretty much has - there's going to be less resistance to removing it altogether.

Which is why there's resistance to Digital ID. There's widespread distrust - with reason - of the political establishment right across the divide.

[4ndrewl]

Slightly different point really - every leader has someone behind them (which is why we have the term Thatcherism, not Josephism).

The point really was about parties themselves being coalitions in all but name.

[ghusto]

I think he's right, actually. It rings true with what we see here in the Netherlands. People don't feel like they're "throwing their vote away" if they vote for a minor party, so politicians can't have a laid back attitude.

[galangalalgol]

There are efforts to make this happen in the us starting locally and working up. The states are left to decide how they implement elections on their own with a couple of exceptions. There is a tragedy of the commons aspect to it though, as if some states adopt proportional representation but not others the ones that do not adopt it gain advantage. Ranked choice voting is taking hold much faster than pr in the us, and it is pretty slow too. It can happen though. Both are viewed as being left leaning, which doesn't really make sense to me.

[AlecSchueler]

Yep and the coalitions are famous for exemplifying the concept of "poldering:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model

[crazygringo]

If their minor party doesn't end up as part of the governing coalition, there's no sense in which people feel like their vote wound up having no effect?

[KoolKat23]

That's not really true. It just means there is a gradient of success rather than outright success or loss. Particular portions of what you voted for may be successful. First past the post means you take it all or leave it all, policywise, small things are likely to fall through the cracks.

[ghssds]

Don't vote. By voting, you partake in a system unable to give most people effective representation. By voting, you ostensibly accept your own alienation.

[wizzwizz4]

This is bad advice. By voting, you accept nothing. By not voting, you merely lose the small power that voting grants you. (Why do you think people are working so hard to disenfranchise voters in the US?)

Construct better systems, by all means, but don't just ignore the system that exists.

[Krasnol]

I assume the main difference is the timeline of events.

It would be ignorant not to fear the ID at this point with all the other mechanisms described by OP.

The ID in itself can be a good thing. There is no evil in itself. The context however is very worrisome as it may become a tool of evil.

Classic human.

[robotresearcher]

Mandatory ID cards are a cultural no-no in the UK. They were required during WW2, then discontinued in peacetime. People burned them in the street. You are not required to show ID to a police officer. Even when driving you don’t need to show a license on the spot, though if stopped for cause you have to present it at a police station within three days. At least those were the rules when I was a young driver there.

The UK has an idiosyncratic relationship with freedom. Technically you have little because (formally limited) monarchy. In practice there’s this aversion to IDs, things like freedom to roam which gives a lot of access to private property, and the ability to get citizenship elsewhere and keep UK, which republics like the US and India won’t allow.

And yet there’s massive camera surveillance from the recent nanny state. And libel laws mean you have to be careful what you print about people. Odd place. Maybe the weather inspires it.

[aikinai]

Multiple citizenships are absolutely allowed in the US.

[robotresearcher]

You are right, I was wrong.

[hollerith]

You assert that the US does not allow dual citizenship, but that is wrong:

>U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities). A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-lega...

[physarum_salad]

Yes, and this cultural attitude really goes way back, like since pre-1500s for England. Then throw Scotland and N.I. into the mix and there is absolutely no interest in this type of system...to put it mildly!

[umanwizard]

I know absolutely tons of people with US + one or more other citizenships. You are misinformed. IDK if there is technically some law against it, but if there is, that law is totally unenforced.

[octo888]

I don't understand why Americans hold freedom of speech / the First Amendment in such high regard.

What does it buy you?

Major corruption, abuse and misconduct still happens. Being able to criticise your government doesn't seem to matter in the social media age. Look at the state of politics in the US right now.

Seems like it's slightly redundant these days – a bit anachronistic?

Kind of odd the obsession with it.

(p.s.: All the social media companies being from the US, of course – thanks for all the misinformation, disinformation and hate speech platforms along with all that 'free speech'!).

[southernplaces7]

>What does it buy you?

Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys". It's a matter of principle and defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip.

For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid actually) imagine how much easier he'd have had it if there were no U.S 1st amendment to use against him.

There's an example of its value. It's just one of many.

If you think being able to protect free expression and the ability to speak out freely against power and its abuse is anachronistic, then I don't know what else to say except that you're a naive or dishonest fool, and possibly part of the very problem in places where péople just don't seem to care that under pretext X or Y, they can be stifled at any time.

Yes, the social media companies produce, or facilitate the production of, vast amounts of misinformation, disinformation and even hate speech, but guess what? All that shit gets produced en masse anyhow by repressive authoritarian regimes with narratives to construct and agendas to maintain. Free speech certainly isn't at fault for its existence, given that such things have existed since there's been propaganda or a perceived need for it.

At least, in a place like the U.S, where free speech remains protected (for now at least), any misinformation, disinformation or whatever speech by those in power or outside of it who create it, can be countered by others trying to speak more truthfully.

Try doing the same against misinformation and disinformation by government in Russia, or many other countries where "anachronistic" free speech is curtailed right to hell.

In essence, when governments can legally censor speech they decide is misinformation, disinformation or "hate speech", they can create all sorts of um, interesting, rubrics for deciding what fits under these labels, and then oops, by coincidence it can be anything that goes against their agendas. Going back to the Trump example, just pause for a moment to think about all the uncomfortable facts and opinions he loves to label as "fake news" or "misinformation" or even as hate speech. Now imagine him having the legal authority to sweep them away.

Nothing in any state guarantees against a future leadership with similar authoritarian proclivities from forming to use anti-free speech laws in similar ways.

There, my good faith response to your completely absurd line of rhetorical questioning.

[octo888]

My point isn't that you should wash it down the toilet because it serves no purpose (of course this is a useful strawman to employ when anyone criticises it); rather, perhaps, that obsessing about it and fully believing it can protect you against eg a Trump presidency isn't very healthy. A bit too much tunnel vision?*

> Well, for one thing, it's not a transactional question of what it "buys"

Let's not play semantics. It's just a phrase

> defense against future repression or manipulation by politicians on a power trip.

Why hasn't it defended against current or past ones? It's not a new amendment, is it?

> For example, given Trump's current and blatant attempts to crush free expression against his own policies and bullshit, or even those who constantly insult and criticize him (whining about it like a little kid actually) imagine how much easier he'd have had it if there were no U.S 1st amendment to use against him.

What has all that criticism gotten you? He's still President right? And there is a worrying number of people talking about a '3rd' term

> when governments can legally censor speech they decide is misinformation, disinformation or "hate speech"

Your government via its plethora of agencies absolutely does this

> At least, in a place like the U.S, where free speech remains protected (for now at least), any misinformation, disinformation or whatever speech by those in power or outside of it who create it, can be countered by others trying to speak more truthfully.

How's that working out?

> There, my good faith response to your completely absurd line of rhetorical questioning.

Wow, Americans really think they are protected from criticism like 'civis Romanus' were protected from harm.

I think your opinions are exactly those I was questioning. Maybe it isn't as useful as you think it is

* another phrase, not to be interpreted literally

[southernplaces7]

First, I'm not an American nor do I live in the USA. My mentioning the 1st amendment is because it's the best known example of free speech protection enshrined in the constitutional law of a country.

Secondly, your logic is well off. I never said the 1st or any similar sort of legal protection for free speech is a guaranteed tool against bad government, repression and censorship. Instead it's ONE tool against these things, and better than its complete absence.

Other efforts still matter and in the U.S, we'll just have to see how they pan out, or not. That still doesn't mean that the 1st or any equivalent to it is irrelevant.

By your apparent reasoning, it's worthless because it doesn't guarantee results and that's sort of like having a fireman throw away their fire axe because it's not a sure fix against a house burning down.

[12_throw_away]

Yeah, the UK's goverment does seem to be always be run by extremely unserious people. And yeah, I also don't know why this keeps being the case. It's not unique to the UK at all (actually I think it's mostly the norm, worldwide) but perhaps not quite as much the case in the Netherlands?

[basisword]

>> So what makes the UK so different to the Netherlands?

Id say it’s not a difference in the politicians but the citizens. Pessimism and paranoia are rampant in the UK. We already went through this ID card debate 20 years ago and the fear-mongering won. So the idea just reignites that debate with a lot of baggage.

The UK has various systems in place to ensure people are legally allowed to work, rent, etc but in reality they inconvenience people without actually catching “the bad guys”. This system would make life more convenient and make the chance of catching the bad guys higher.

In truth though the problem is dodgy employers on a large scale. Take Deliveroo or Uber Eats. The accounts are rented out to illegal workers. You could literally catch one for every order you make. But for some reason the government isn’t actually going after the obvious hanging fruit.

[array_key_first]

Because the government doesn't actually care about illegal workers. Otherwise, like you said, they would spend 1/100th the money and go after low hanging fruit.

Which begs the question - if that's not the purpose of this law, then what is?

[Theodores]

Spying has always gone on, however, in the UK there is a lot of it. WW1, WW2 and the Cold War was all about spying. Considerable infrastructure was built to support this, culminating in 'Five Eyes'.

Furthermore, the former empire was built so that all of the telegraph and telephone lines went to London. If you wanted to make a call from one African colony to the next, London would be in on the man in the middle.

As well as this vast international capability, there is also the domestic front. During the Miners Strike in the 1980s the secret services were tasked with spying, notably on the leader of the miners, Arthur Scargill. Allegedly he used to pick up the phone and just give them a few words, either to misguide them or to tease them.

This spying continued with Northern Ireland being a 'training ground' during 'The Troubles'. There was also considerable opposition to cruise missiles in the UK during the Thatcher years and all of the people active in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were under surveillance. This was not the end of it though. Eco-activism was also of interest along with a few high profile problem people.

As well as the secret services, there is also Scotland Yard. They infiltrate every anti-government single issue pressure group as a matter of course, placing people in deep cover. Two Guardian Journalists brought this to light in 2012 or so.

Then, on top of that, there are the capabilities of the big companies such as British Aerospace. They have their spies too.

Hence, on the domestic front, surveillance is vital to cut anyone down to size if they might challenge the establishment at a later date. Everything just gets nipped in the bud.

The 'Special Relationship' is the spying arrangement at the heart of 'Five Eyes'. In the USA, surveillance of the population is not allowed, so the workaround is to get the Brits to do it for them. This is how it works and has been working for decades.

If the UK secret services want to spy on someone in the UK then they will have the manpower to do it without getting caught. They will be able to get school reports, attendance at political demonstrations and much else regarding a person of interest.

There is nothing new that I have said here, Snowden and The Guardian brought all of this to light, in broad strokes. Both HUMINT and SIGINT is world leading. Compare with the USA where they have the dragnet but are not so capable when it comes to the HUMINT needed for monitoring a small group of individuals such as the leadership of a trade union.

It is for these reasons that spying has to be made easy for them, for instance by banning Huawei 5g routers on the pretence that China is using Huawei backdoors to spy on the UK. The problem was not that, it was different. With the likes of Cisco et al, the secret services can specify their own back doors, however, that is not so easy with Chinese owned companies.

There is much in the way of law that has gone along with this, for example the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 and the Terrorism Act 2000. The latter was definitely to target eco-activists, not anyone else. At the time there were eco-activist groups such as Reclaim The Streets that organised things such as rioting in the City of London with no identifiable leaders. They also did not book their protests with the police or organise security for the day, hence they needed to terminated.

9/11 brought new challenges and that brings us on to where we are today. I personally do not think this digital ID is a big deal. Any British citizen can already be easily identified even if they don't know their National Insurance number, and even if they have no photo ID in the form of a passport or a driving license. Name, date of birth and hospital of birth are the three bits of information needed. As well as the police, the NHS can work with that. As for employers and their needs to hire only people legally permitted to work in the UK, this is just for due diligence reasons from their part. If you speak with an accent that can only be British then you can meet the employer's checkbox requirements easily, with no photo ID. Just a bank statement should do.

So, where is this coming from? What plausible reason could there be for a fresh attempt at identity cards, for the umpteenth time?

Brexit...

As you know, Brexit happened and it was ugly. Due to the way that 'The Troubles' ended with the Good Friday Agreement, the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland (The Irish Republic is just 'Ireland', not any other name) has to be kept open.

What this means is that the EU is not a complete fortress, there is this imaginary border in the Irish Sea that can't be closed.

Immigration post-Brexit

A major selling point of Brexit was an end to immigration. However, due to the open border with Ireland, immigration has become a problem to the authorities, not least because working class people despise losing their jobs or getting paid less because there is a constant stream of people that will undercut them in the employment market.

What happens is that some country ends up being regime changed, as per the goals of The War Against Terror. Syria was particularly notable for the refugee situation. However, there is also Afghanistan, Iraq and everything in between up until Ukraine. What happens is very sad. People walk, hitch or smuggle themselves into Europe to arrive in one country such as Greece. Here they are looked after but they are unable to work or escape the refugee camps to buy a house, start a family and all those good things.

So they escape the cage of the EU country they first entered to try somewhere else. Maybe they get to Germany. However, in Germany, they will be asked where they came from, for example Greece, and get sent back to Greece. Maybe they try another EU country, to get sent back again. And so it goes, until someone advises them to go to Ireland, where they can walk over the border to the UK, as in Northern Ireland.

Since the UK is not in the EU, they get a fresh start at claiming asylum. This gets granted and the local authority is then likely to put them up in temporary accommodation.

Next they get 'dispersed'. What this means is that they get sent to another British town or city. Here they get temporary accommodation and a ridiculously small amount of money to live on. This money does not meet their basic needs. The asylum process leads to refugee status, which is not citizenship, however, they are permitted to work, legally. At a guess it takes two years to get to this second hoop. To get past refugee status takes even longer, if successful.

During this time the asylum seeker is not allowed their passport, the government keeps that. They can get a travel permit, however, if they return to their home country then they get banned and are not allowed back.

So that is the general process. To say immigration is out of control is an understatement to some and 'fascist' to others. It is a topic best not talked about, and the practicalities of it are not well understood. A boat crossing the English Channel full of asylum seekers are going to make the headlines of the gutter press, but this Brexit loophole situation is not something that the journalists appreciate fully, particularly if they voted for Brexit, then they are just not wanting to know.

Plausibly, the compulsory digital ID checks for work can be used to make the UK unattractive to asylum seekers that know the deal in the EU.

Currently the biggest threat to the main political parties is Farage and his Reform party. In recent polls, Reform (or whatever they are called) would sweep the board, taking seats from both the Conservatives and Labour. Due to how it works with no proportional representation, the exact outcome of this does not necessarily mean Reform would have a majority, however, it would be the end of the Conservative Party.

Hence, compulsory digital IDs would provide convenience for everyone, when dealing with the government, whilst giving the spies the primary keys they always wanted. However, for reasons of holding on to power, due to the threat of the Reform Party, there may be extra urgency.

[closewith]

> And so it goes, until someone advises them to go to Ireland, where they can walk over the border to the UK, as in Northern Ireland.

This is absurd. The problem is the exact opposite, nearly all IPAs in Ireland come from the UK via the common travel area. Ireland is not in Schengen and is not reachable from the continent by small boat, so there is negligible migrant flow in the opposite direction.