ID CARDS? HERE IS THE TRUTH

ID, or not ID, that is the question – and here is your answer

There is a lot of media talk about the government looking at introducing a digital ID scheme, supposedly to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. Is it a good idea? Would it work? I'll answer those questions, but first it's instructive to look at the history of ID cards in Britain to see how they have worked in the past and whether there is anything we can learn from these experiences.

ID cards were first introduced in Britain in 1939 through the National Registration Act 1939, in order to mobilise for war – including for conscription, rationing and civil defence. The card had a unique number and included the person's name, address, and date of birth, and the police could demand to see it at any time.

This was therefore more intrusive than the National Registration Act 1915 introduced in WWI. This obliged every person in the UK aged 15 to 65 had to fill out a registration form, providing their name, age, address, occupation, marital status and dependents. This information was compiled into a national register and each person was issued with a registration certificate with a unique registration number. But people were not obliged to carry this certificate around with them and the police could not stop you and ask to see it, so it was not what we would understand as an ID card.

The ID cards issued in WWII continued to be used after the war, for rationing and administrative purposes. But they became increasingly unpopular and in 1950 a man refused to show his card to the police. This led to a landmark case - Willcock v Muckle - in which the court criticized the misuse of ID cards for petty policing. Shortly thereafter, in 1952, Winston Churchill abolished ID cards.

Nothing more was said or heard of ID cards in Britain until the despicably evil Tony Blair – probably our worst post-war prime minister – passed the Identity Cards Act 2006. As now, illegal immigration was cited as a justification, together with terrorism. The idea was to have both a National Identity Register and individual ID cards, which would hold biometric data (fingerprints and facial scans). A pilot scheme began rolling out in 2008, with the establishment of a National Identity Register, and then ID cards issued both to foreign nationals and volunteers in Manchester and Liverpool willing to pay the £30 cost. A total of some 15,000 cards were issued before the Conservative/LibDem coalition government scrapped the scheme by passing the Identity Documents Act 2010.

And that should have been that. But here we are again. Having previously – just a few weeks ago! - rejected the idea of ID cards, Two-Tier Keir now says that things have “moved on”, and that an ID scheme could play an "important part" in tackling illegal immigration. Make no mistake – this is coming. Official sources have confirmed that the Cabinet has discussed “options around digital ID”, and new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has stated clearly "my long term personal political view has always been in favour of ID cards".

When asked about the possibility of a compulsory scheme, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We’re willing to look at what works when it comes to tackling illegal migration.” Yes, that is how the Britain-hating piece of shit intends to persuade us to accept it: by using the illegal immigration invasion that he himself is responsible for in order to justify oppressing us even more, with all British citizens – as well as foreign residents – subject to the new scheme.

In order to make the scheme seem less intrusive, instead of issuing plastic cards that we are forced to carry around, the government is proposing a digital scheme, with everything held on our mobile phones. Pat McFadden (since the reshuffle on 5 September the Work and Pensions Minister but at the time the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) recently visited Estonia to see how their digital ID system works. They have one of the world’s most comprehensive systems, which you even use to access your bank accounts, to vote and to pay your taxes.

So that is the history of ID cards, and the position of the government, but the question we now must ask ourselves is 'are these a good idea?'

The government claims that these will reduce illegal immigration by reducing the pull factor of illegal working. This is also what the French government has claimed; they say that the reason for the surge in small boat crossings is because Britain’s black economy attracts asylum seekers who know that although they are barred from working while their application is being considered, they can easily find employment in service industry jobs such as delivering takeaways. The same applies to those who remain, illegally, even when their application for asylum has been rejected, or who overstay their work, visitor or student visa and simply go underground. These people can easily obtain illegal black economy jobs and illegal rented accommodation.

But would ID cards – whether physical or digital – put an end to this illegal employment and accommodation? Probably not: the underground economy in France, where ID cards are mandatory, is not very different from that here in Britain! And remember that British employers and landlords are already currently required to check the immigration status of new employees or tenants, and face large fines if they employ or rent to people without the right to be in the UK. However, there is very little enforcement action: that is the problem. Employers and landlords know full well that they are breaking the law but they don't care as this is very profitable for them, and it's been reported that “a typical employer can expect that the Home Office will check their verification processes once every 150 years”! As is so often the case when it comes to immigration, the government passes laws but doesn't enforce them, and then, when the problems persist, it thinks the answer is to pass more laws. No – just enforce the existing laws!

But even if, by some unknown miraculous process, a national ID system did stop illegal working and accommodation, would this really put an end to the pull factors that lure the invading army of illegal migrants to the UK? Hardly! Illegal immigrants just have to say the magic word 'asylum' (absolutely no proof of their claims is required, as I've previously highlighted) and they get free accommodation – either in hotels or luxury privately-rented housing (including brand new £300,000 town houses complete with en-suite bathrooms, electric vehicle charging points and underfloor heating). They get free money each week, a mobile phone or SIM card, free medical and dental care, computer and internet facilities, public transport, clothing and a host of freebies that you would barely believe, including free football tickets, driving lessons, PlayStations and even DJ lessons! None of these luxuries will be withdrawn as a result of ID cards. So you tell me – do you think the problem of the 'pull factors' will change?

So if ID cards are not going to stop illegal immigration – and they're not – then what's the point of them? Of course it's true that if we had ID cards then you could think up lots of ways to use them, from electronic voting to registering for a GP, but these would all be a form of post-facto justification. In other words the government would be trying to justify ID cards after introducing them rather than before doing so. It's a bit like buying a shiny new toy on impulse and only afterwards trying to find ways to use it in order to justify the expense.

And what would the cost be? In May 2007, the Home Office estimated the ID card scheme would cost £5.75 billion in the first decade alone. An independent analysis by the London School of Economics however costed the scheme at between £12 and £18 billion in the first decade! Admittedly, these figures applied to a scheme that involved physical cards, and the government is now talking about a digital ID system that would be on your smartphone, so they would argue that the cost would be lower, but would it? Much of the cost was the management of the central database, and updating this whenever there were changes to be made. And not everyone has a smartphone, so how do you deal with those who don't? Clearly there would be a need for physical cards after all. And those cost estimates date back some 20 years, so the real cost now would be much greater!

And there's another thing: beware of mission creep! The more expensive and controversial the scheme, the more the government needs to justify it, and the only way to do so is to find more uses for it – which would have the added benefit, as far as the government is concerned, of monitoring and controlling the population, all justified in the name of security! So your government-issued ID would inevitably be required to open bank accounts, probably even to make withdrawals, to buy mobile phones or register with an internet service provider, to open a social media account, to buy goods online, to pay your taxes and probably much more besides.

The pro-Labour think tank 'Labour Together' has been pushing for a compulsory digital ID for every adult, claiming (deceitfully, as we have seen) that this would crack down on illegal migration, but also saying it would provide the public with a “one-stop shop” for government services such as passports or benefits. They tried to make this sound attractive by claiming it would avoid the need for further identity checks, and even gave the scheme an ever-so-patriotic sounding name: the 'BritCard'!

So is that the real reason for the sudden impetus for a digital ID scheme: to impose complete control over the population? Partly, yes. Partly also there is no doubt that Labour do believe the simplistic mantra that this will somehow crack down on illegal immigrants (and given the rise of Reform in the polls they are desperate to do anything that will persuade the public they are doing something about this), but partly too it is simply the international politics equivalent of 'keeping up with the Jones's'. Remember that visit to Estonia by Pat McFadden I mentioned earlier? He was so smitten and envious of their shiny, all-singing, all-dancing technology that he was desperate to get his own version and not be like the poor kid without the latest expensive toy, and told The Times that “the UK risked being left “behind the curve” in adopting such new technologies”, which, with monotonous predictability, he lied could “tackle the number of small boats crossing the Channel” and even “boost productivity”, though where that assertion came from only God only knows!

The fact is that an ID scheme will do nothing to stop the illegal immigrants flooding into Britain, it will cost billions, it will be used to control every aspect of our lives, and it will not achieve anything that cannot be done already by other means. Those are the realities, but what about the politics?

I'll grudgingly give the government credit for their devious deceitfulness and for banging the drum about this being a tool to stop the invasion of foreign criminals and parasites. That is a message that is very seductive and effective in fooling the public. A detailed opinion poll shows that, when asked, the immediate public response to the proposal is an overall 57% in favour, with support strongest among Conservative voters (74%) and the over 55s (66%). This, however, is before they are asked to consider the details of how the scheme would work, what its benefits would be, whether the government could be trusted to implement it effectively, what information would be stored (such as DNA and fingerprints) and so on. When they are forced to use their brains, support falls dramatically – to an overall level of 38% in favour, and with support falling most among Conservatives (down to 39%) and the over 55s (down to 31%). This just shows what moronic sheep these people are, that they instinctively support and believe the government liars until they are forced to actually use what little brains they have!

Although the public can be persuaded to oppose the scheme, I believe the government is now determined to force this through. The big questions that remain are exactly what personal details will be stored on the card (whether physical or online), how it will be used, and whether the police will have the right to demand to see this on the spot. In other words, how much of a police state are we heading towards. The omens are not good. The only hope is that Reform – who are most likely to form the next government – will promise to scrap the whole thing. Given that it will take at least 4 years to get this off the ground (taking into account the time needed for consultation, legislation, software development, the compilation of a national database, etc), this would mean the whole scheme would be stillborn and never adopted.

So what is the Reform position? If you have a Reform MP, or any influence in the party, please forward this article to them and try to persuade them to abort this abomination!

-----------

If you liked this article then please share it on Facebook, Twitter/X, and by email to your friends.

Spread the word!!

And SUBSCRIBE NOW – it's FREE!

Thank you :-)