Fresh out of university and looking for a career in public policy, I interviewed for a job in the Conservative Research Department of the British Conservative Party. At the time, Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, was concerned about the prevalence of soccer hooliganism and had proposed a national identity card scheme for soccer fans as a way of curtailing the problem. I was asked to provide arguments to justify this intrusion. I could not and sputtered a half-hearted response. I did not get the job (nor did Michael Gove, future Cabinet Minister and current editor of The Spectator, but a chap named David Cameron did). It soon appeared that the rest of the Conservative Party and the public at large agreed with me. The identity scheme faltered and was withdrawn from consideration.
Today, however, the British public is told that every one of them – football supporter or not – is to have a “BritCard” identity app on their phone. This would be a constitutional innovation of the worst sort, fundamentally altering the relationship between the citizen and the state, upending the traditional British concept of rights, and will probably pave the way for a complementary abrogation of liberty, a central bank digital currency (CBDC.) It is pretty much commonplace in the United Kingdom today to say that “Britain is finished,” but if His Majesty’s Government gets away with this, that may finally be right.
Aside from Thatcher’s flirtation, ID cards have a troubled history in the UK. They were introduced during the Second World War but were retained afterwards by the socialist Attlee government. By 1950, there was growing disquiet that the police were demanding to see ID cards during any routine stop. Things came to a head when a Liberal Party activist named Harry Willcock was stopped for speeding in North London. On being asked to produce his card, Willcock refused, responding with British understatement, “I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing.” He further refused to produce his card at a police station and was therefore prosecuted under the wartime act.
The case was initially heard by local justices, who disagreed with Willcock that the law had expired as the emergency had expired, but refused to punish him, giving him an “absolute discharge.” The case proceeded to the King’s Bench division of the High Court to decide the point of law over whether the law was still valid and was unusually heard before a bench of seven judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. While the Court found that the law remained in effect, no costs were awarded against Willcock, which is usually the case in such circumstances, and Lord Goddard wrote the following:
“To use Acts of Parliament passed for particular purposes in wartime when the war is a thing of the past—except for the technicality that a state of war exists—tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public, and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police, and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of assisting them.”
Lord Goddard’s first warning does not just apply to wartime laws, but to any state of emergency – something I have discussed here before in another context. Emergency powers can easily turn the otherwise law-abiding into lawbreakers. However, the current Labour government is not claiming wartime powers or even a particular state of emergency, but to change the law in perpetuity.
That makes Goddard’s second warning the more pertinent. It has always been the case that British police have their authority through the consent of the public. As Sir Robert Peel’s principles put it, “the police are the public and the public are the police.” Police officers are simply members of the public “paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” The basis of policing is therefore mutual trust.
Mandatory ID changes that relationship. Trust is eroded when verification is required. Citizens are no longer partners in maintaining order but potential suspects. This is especially the case when the lack of ID itself becomes a crime, or at least an enforcement action. The message is that citizens are not the state but subservient to it, a message that should repel any freedom-loving people.
This was indeed the reason for the breakdown of the post-war ID mandate. Willcock went on to champion abolition within the Liberal Party, but as he was part of the out-of-favor free trade wing of the party, he made little headway (how history rhymes!), leaving the door open to the Conservatives, who campaigned on “setting the people free” against the Labour government that wished to retain it, and won. Willcock, who became a personal hero of mine as I researched this essay, died suddenly shortly after the repeal bill was passed, with the last word on his lips reportedly being, “Freedom.”
As I said, Thatcher’s flirtation with cards for football supporters that doomed my job prospects didn’t last much longer, and isn’t even mentioned in her memoir, The Downing Street Years. So, it was left to a Labour government under Tony Blair to try again. This time, a law entitled the Identity Cards Act of 2006 established a National Identity Register that would enable the issuing of ID cards. The government set about compiling the register, which included details like name, gender, date of birth, address, previous addresses, legal status for residency and so on.
The law was initially popular, reaching 80 percent public support, but enough people were incensed by the law for a mass pressure group to form called No2ID, campaigning against what it called “the database state.” This was backed up by academic research at the London School of Economics, which disputed the government’s rationales for the move, such as a rising threat of identity theft and international obligations, neither of which were found to have much weight.
No2ID’s campaign director said, “Our strategy was simple: To reach and engage those people who would rather go to prison than have an ID card…In reaching those people, we knew we’d get many more who were less committed, and educate millions. And if we got even just a handful of them, we’d be a force to reckon with.” They were indeed. It was the first act of the newly elected coalition Conservative-Liberal Democrat government in 2010 to repeal the Act.
Yet bad ideas never die (see also: socialism.) The current Labour government of Sir Keir Starmer has seized on current dissatisfaction with high levels of immigration to launch his bid for Digital IDs. This misses the target. Unlike in the USA, most popular discontent is not with illegal immigration, but with legal immigration – specifically the high rates of asylum seekers and those who came legally during the so-called “Boriswave” after Brexit.
Moreover, the real concern of those who oppose the scheme is not so much what the initial justification is but the likely mission creep. As suggested above, the introduction of mandatory ID cards fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. The state becomes the gatekeeper of functions rather than their guarantor – and the number of functions likely to be affected is immense: welfare, banking, travel, medical records and services, even voting. Leviathan turns out not to be a Lovecraftian monster from the deep, but something made up of ones and zeroes.
The most likely next step is perhaps the most pernicious. Digital ID becomes the obverse side of digital currency. The Bank of England has already floated the idea of a programmable digital pound, where programmability means the ability not just to monitor but to stop purchases. Given that regulations aimed at reducing childhood obesity have already led pubs and shops to stop offering free refills of hot chocolate, among other sugary drinks, it is easy to see how regulators would jump at the chance to use Digital IDs and currency to prevent purchases they disapprove of. Britain’s nanny state could make China’s social credit scheme look junior league by comparison. Thus, the introduction of Digital ID cards may be the most important constitutional question the UK has faced in generations, more important perhaps than Brexit. No2ID no longer has a presence even on the web. If it cannot be reorganized, then Britain’s reputation as the home of a freedom-loving people may forever be lost. It is only a short step from “Papers please” to “Computer says no.”
