The proposals are the government's latest bid to tackle illegal immigration, with the new ID being a form of proof of a citizen's right to live and work in the UK.
17:10 
Read the original article
Comments
By aftergibson 2025-09-2611:5216 reply A secure, optional digital ID could be useful. But not in today’s UK. Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data.
- Snoopers’ Charter (Investigatory Powers Act 2016): ISPs must keep a year’s worth of records of which websites you visit. More than 40 agencies—from MI5 to the Welsh Ambulance Service—can request it. MI5 has already broken the rules and kept data it shouldn’t have.
- Encryption backdoors: Ministers can issue “Technical Capability Notices” to force tech firms to weaken or bypass end-to-end encryption.
- Online Safety Act: Expands content-scanning powers that experts warn could undermine privacy for everyone.
- Palantir deals: The government has given £1.5 billion+ in contracts to a US surveillance firm that builds predictive-policing tools and runs the NHS’s new Federated Data Platform. Many of those deals are secret.
- Wall-to-wall cameras: Millions of CCTV cameras already make the UK one of the most surveilled countries in the world.
A universal digital ID would plug straight into this ecosystem, creating an always-on, uniquely identified record of where you go and what you do. Even if paper or card options exist on paper, smartphone-based systems will dominate in practice, leaving those without phones excluded or coerced.
I’m not against digital identity in principle. But until the UK government proves it can protect basic privacy—by rolling back mass data retention, ending encryption backdoor demands, and enforcing genuine oversight—any national digital ID is a surveillance power-grab waiting to happen.
I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility.
By qazwsxedchac 2025-09-2619:237 reply The ID cards as realized in many other countries are comparatively benign, because they are a physical credential in the possession of the person concerned. The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire. Distributed storage in action.
The UK's proposal makes the "digital ID" a pointer to an entry in a centralized database. This database is the definitive record of what you are allowed to do or not do (like reside and work). Which can be changed or deleted at the stroke of a key, through human error or malice. Then what?
When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary. The "digital ID" as set out today can't work for its ostensible purpose. Therefore its actual purpose isn't being declared. Not hard to connect the dots.
By crazygringo 2025-09-2620:312 reply > The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire
This is not true. Government agencies generally look up your ID as necessary to check if it's still valid.
Stopped for speeding? The cop is going to look up your driver's license.
Leaving the country? They're running your passport number.
Starting a job? They're checking the status of your SSN.
The physical ID is good enough for low-stakes stuff like renting a car with a driver's license, or proving your age to get into a bar. But it's already not trusted on its own for any of the serious stuff you're talking about, like where you can reside and work.
By psnehanshu 2025-09-2621:25 Which means they are already a "pointer" to a record in a centralised database.
By tempay 2025-09-271:25 Even for renting a car these days you need a verification code that you can request from the DVLA using your national insurance number.
By squidbeak 2025-09-2620:50 No the proposal is in line with your first paragraph. 'Attribute level proofs' (cyptographically signed data) stored in the user wallet, with those signatures coming from verification companies polling an API in front of government departments. The other side of it is a trust registry holding verification service public keys for signature checks..
By philipallstar 2025-09-2620:116 reply I'm against the ID, but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.
By squidbeak 2025-09-2620:54 The op is incorrect. The 'database entry' is the one that exists right now at the DVLA for driving licenses or HMPO for passports. Private sector verification services poll that data to verify the data entered by the user in onboarding. That's it.
By nine_k 2025-09-274:09 Good public key cryptography should make it pretty hard. Yes, rotate the IDs every 10 years, with a new photo and using a new private key.
By protimewaster 2025-09-2620:152 reply Doesn't a physically held digital ID also do that? Assuming the encryption is strong, verifying that the data on the ID has the proper cryptographic signature should provide assurance that the ID is real, shouldn't it?
I guess, depending on how it's implemented, maybe an ID could be cloned and still appear valid, but that seems like a possibility for the UK's approach as well (the clone would just point to the same database entry).
By grues-dinner 2025-09-2621:52 In a good modern implementation, it should be extremely hard to produce a physical card with an authenticated pointer to the database, because that would be also signed.
But considering that they've been retiring things like biometric residence cards in favour of web-based systems, it's possible there will be no physical component.
By philipallstar 2025-09-2621:38 Yes, I think you're probably right. But it still solves other problems such as "the app is a lookalike". If the app is basically an ID delivery mechanism that allows an operator to call up your photo, it becomes a relatively foolproof way to identify you accurately.
By kristianc 2025-09-2620:29 "Just one more bit of regulation will solve the problem" is how Britain became the most centralised country in Western Europe. The sad thing is that the majority of the population still buy it.
By southernplaces7 2025-09-2623:33 >but the more good faith reason for a database entry is it should eliminate fake IDs.
Really? If anything it would make them easier. Hackers routinely break into government databases to exfiltrate information. An ID attribute databases would be no exception, for exfiltration, or simply modification of data. Ie: creating a fake ID.
By XorNot 2025-09-2620:30 The actual reason is everyone has a phone.
We have this is NSW in Australia: the Services NSW app provides a digital drivers license which is guaranteed to be accepted by authorities as legitimate.
By closeparen 2025-09-270:32 >When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary.
Penury and deportation are quite a bit of scope already! Maybe they'll put an "arrest" bit in there. Warrants are already a thing. I don't see the UK going in for murder just yet. What's left?
By ajsnigrutin 2025-09-270:47 Not just that, but currently, requiring real data to register to eg. social networks (reddit, hn,...) is hard. With everyone having a digital ID on their phones, tying their identity to their real ID will be easy, you'll just "sign" (or whatever) your reddit registration with your ID and your real name will be tied to that account. Combine this with EU chat control (and UK alternatives.. and well, EU digital ID alternatives), and the era of semi-anonymous internet use is over.
>The government cannot stop this credential from being used except by physically confiscating it or by waiting (years) for it to expire. Distributed storage in action.
Not really. It's part of identity management or whatever it's called to have an ability to recall ids, because they get lost, stolen and people to who they are issued die.
>When (not if) the database becomes an attribute store across a wider scope, the implications are scary.
What are the scary implication really? Most of the EU and beyond has some kind of login to the government capability. And?
What's the threat model really? The government will revoke your fancy thing to report taxes digitally for no reason and bankrupt you? They can do so without such roundabout ways.
By aembleton 2025-09-2622:06 Post something the government doesn't like, and you can no longer get a job, but you never find out why.
By slt2021 2025-09-271:33 [dead]
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.
By dannyobrien 2025-09-2621:382 reply 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-...
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.
By umanwizard 2025-09-275:28 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?
By KoolKat23 2025-09-273:12 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).
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.
By JetSetIlly 2025-09-272:42 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).
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.
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.
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.
By BobaFloutist 2025-09-2619:281 reply 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.
By KoolKat23 2025-09-273:20 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.
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.
By actionfromafar 2025-09-2618:351 reply 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.
By nostrademons 2025-09-2619:391 reply 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.
By actionfromafar 2025-09-2621:46 With a Supreme Court like this one, what’s on the books don’t matter. They’ll find the interpretation.
By ghssds 2025-09-275:36 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.
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.
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".
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(!)
By TheOtherHobbes 2025-09-2622:39 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.
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.
By AlecSchueler 2025-09-2618:46 Yep and the coalitions are famous for exemplifying the concept of "poldering:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model
By galangalalgol 2025-09-2618:56 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.
By crazygringo 2025-09-2620:36 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?
By KoolKat23 2025-09-273:17 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.
By 12_throw_away 2025-09-2617:53 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?
By robotresearcher 2025-09-2619:573 reply 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.
By aikinai 2025-09-273:58 Multiple citizenships are absolutely allowed in the US.
By umanwizard 2025-09-275:37 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.
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'!).
By southernplaces7 2025-09-270:43 >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.
By Krasnol 2025-09-2618:02 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.
>> 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.
By array_key_first 2025-09-2619:13 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?
By Theodores 2025-09-2620:01 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.
By lacy_tinpot 2025-09-2619:49 If a State can't be trusted with data of its citizens it can't be trusted with passports, birth certificates, or any numerous other instances of identity. Being able to identify citizens is basic and essential to the functioning of a State whereby the failure to do means the total failure of the State.
In effect the State is no longer a State and is in fact entirely dysfunctional.
Italy has got an ID card since forever. Of course it was a piece of paper, it's a piece of plastic with a chip now. There is some experimentation to move that into the state app.
Everything accelerates when it becomes digital, for the better or for the worse. One thing that an ID does not do is preventing crime and allowing only legal jobs. People find a lot of ways to circumvent the rules as long as there are money to earn.
I accept all these valid points, but don’t they already know exactly who we are and have a digital file on us already? I mean, I have a drivers licence and a home address and an internet connection I typically don’t use a vpn on. There’s no way they don’t have all this already right?
By crimsoneer 2025-09-2619:53 They do but it's all disconnected, migrants don't have it, and it makes delivering government services a massive pain.
By nostrademons 2025-09-2619:235 reply I wonder if zkSTARKS could help here. Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interactive_zero-knowledge...
By endgame 2025-09-270:12 Whizz-bang cryptographic solutions to this class of problem (digital ID, electronic voting, etc) have at least three major problems that I consider fatal:
1. The contract to build the thing will go to the lowest bidder, who is all but guaranteed not to do any of it correctly (cf. the UK Post Office scandal and Fujitsu's role in it).
2. The public has no guarantee that it is implemented in the cryptographically secure way, or that is is ONLY implemented in the cryptographically secure way (e.g., either by accident or through malice the system leaks info it shouldn't).
3. The overwhelming majority of the public are not trained in nearly enough computer science to understand "no actually this system isn't a total privacy nightmare" (assuming that it's actually implemented securely).
By grues-dinner 2025-09-2620:41 That's basically how the existing share code system works for non-citizens. You the worker ask the government for a share code. You provide that to the prospective employer and they can check that it is valid. The same or similar system can be used for driving license validity.
The digital ID is presumably (this is my pulling a guess from my rear end, but if I had to implement it, I'd use the existing system) an extension to cover citizens too. In fact, in principle of that's how it works, it will marginally improve privacy because current status quo is basically that citizens provide their passport to the employer to demonstrate right to work via citizenship.
I also assume that the universal use of a single system means that spot-checking any workers status becomes easier. Currently if police, say, to use a common example, stop a food delivery rider and ask for their right to work they can say they're a citizen and just don't have ID on them. The UK has long derided the idea of everyone being expected to have ID with them with phrases like "papieren bitte", but it does mean that the authorities basically cannot check working statuses unless there's a physical workplace they can raid. Which is a weakness app-platforms and many people without the right to work have figured out.
A cynic might think that that kind of problem sounds a lot like a problem the government could already have solved in several other ways, but by letting it fester might finally garner public acceptance for the universal ID system they've always wanted.
This is the proposal for the UK system right now. Zero Knowledge Proofs. The technical side hasn't been adequately explained to the public.
By hardlianotion 2025-09-276:20 How do you know that?
By mr_toad 2025-09-2621:48 > This is the proposal for the UK system right now.
Is it? Nobody knows if it’s going to be an app, or a virtual card, or a real card. So speculation and rumours are flying.
Whoever does comms for the government must be asleep.
By Muromec 2025-09-2620:43 > Prove that the validity of a statement (like "I am a citizen that is authorized to receive benefits") without revealing your precise identity.
but... why? the agency that gives out benefits has to mint this credential and has to assess your dossier. Or they can assess your dossier, write you a snail mail with a result and wire the money.
What's the use of this fancy crypto other that finding a but in this token-minting service and getting those benefits without actually being entitled?
This would be great and all, but all parties who are in a position to choose to implement this kind of system or to keep the status quo are already motivated to keep (and expand) the existing systems, for any number of reasons. Everybody (except the end users) loves to keep that juicy metadata and incidental logs of everything.
(Repost from 2021: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560821>)
By nostrademons 2025-09-2620:06 It's worth designing a system of government that works for everybody, if only for the simple reason that we will very shortly (if we don't already) have a system that works for nobody, and likely everybody shooting everybody else will follow soon after that. A utopia at least gives people something to shoot for, and if you get very lucky you might end up with an idealist in power who's willing to give it a shot.
By dfxm12 2025-09-2620:20 With all the cameras and phone tracking you've brought up, what does the ID give to the government that they don't already have? I get where you're coming from; I think about this myself. However, I usually come to the conclusion that concern around this is being penny wise but pound foolish, considering both the point you've brought up and also that I have a tracking device in my pocket with me at all times that already keeps track of where I am, what I'm doing and what I'm thinking. I don't really trust Google, Apple, etc. any more than the government. I've also seen governments punish people extrajudicially (or just trump up charges) when they want to, without this.
By clickety_clack 2025-09-271:45 The fact is that no government can be trusted because they are not permanent. If a previous government had instituted, the current one would not be rolling it back. The loss of rights is like a ratchet: it only goes one way, click by click.
By puppycodes 2025-09-2620:32 Once its there it will almost certainly never be rolled back.
Freedom is incompatible with the UK.
By j-krieger 2025-09-2622:25 > Why? Because the state has already shown it can’t be trusted with our data.
No state can ever be trusted with this amount of data. Governments change. Someday, there will be a government in charge that you will disagree with.
By iamnothere 2025-09-2619:103 reply But don’t you understand, it will be so convenient. Just imagine the convenience! Are you opposed to convenience?
Frankly, you’re just being paranoid. It’s possible that mandatory digital ID could be abused, but officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it. So why are you so worried? You’re already tracked everywhere you go, and many countries already have this system. It seems to work well there for keeping people in line. Do you have something to hide? Seems a little suspicious, no?
(Did I miss any talking points?)
By array_key_first 2025-09-2619:151 reply > officials haven’t yet announced their intentions to abuse it.
This one is my favorite. I don't know if it's just unthinkable naivety or a misunderstanding of how bad actors work, but it boggles my mind that this type of reasoning is often one of the top arguments I hear.
By baobun 2025-09-2622:30 The post office scandal wasn't that long ago, even. How can you blame people for doubting the ability to keep integrity of the system and that it won't be abused and that any abuse or incidents won't be covered up?
By Muromec 2025-09-2620:47 >(Did I miss any talking points?)
Silently pointing out to the whole world that does this already and nothing scary happened that can't happen otherwise.
The only reason we have ids is the borders and codified inequality anyway. I can't go to certain places with one id and can go there with the other. In some specific places I can go in, but would not be able to get out.
Somehow I haven't seen a lot of intersection between people who believe we should not have borders and people who believe we should not have ids.
By adolph 2025-09-2623:48 > I'm certain it's worked well in other countries, but I have zero trust in the UK government to handle this responsibility.
This commenter may sound like a paranoid person (and may very well be, I don't know them) but read about the way the UK government handled an IT error in post office accounting software. Someone living there has good reason to not trust the powers that be.
By Havoc 2025-09-2621:23 Uk has a lot of cameras sure but the vast majority of them look like 360p tech frankly
By octo888 2025-09-2612:04 Very well said
Get a grip. Everybody in the UK already has a National Insurance number and NHS number, and most have either a driving license or passport — all the elements of national identity are already in place. This is just FUD.
By aembleton 2025-09-2622:14 So why is another form of ID needed?
By 77pt77 2025-09-2622:30 [dead]
Before the election I was approached by a bubbly young woman who tried to persuade me to vote Labour: "No thanks, last time I did that they tried to introduce ID cards", "But that's not in our manifesto" she replied, "It wasn't the last time I voted for them either".
It gives me no pleasure to be right on this.
By jama211 2025-09-2619:51 It was introduced by the Tories, supported by both parties, and you live in a place with FPTP voting. Not voting for labour isn’t going to help anything except give more power to the others who are worse.
By celticninja 2025-09-2611:377 reply Could you explain what it is you find so distasteful about ID cards?
I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to prove my age.
It all depends on exactly when they're mandatory and what tracking is associated with them.
My own personal thinking has evolved on the subject since I campaigned against ID cards under Blair ("no2id"). It is a question of trust and purpose. Things like the Estonian digital identity scheme do not seem to be bad in practice. The problem comes from identity checkpoints, which serve as an opportunity for inconvenience, surveillance, and negligence by the authorities.
Remember the "computer is never wrong" Fujitsu scandal? The Windrush fiasco (itself a story of identity and records)?
And anything born of an immigration crackdown is coming out of the gate with a declared intention to be paranoid and authoritarian.
By jodrellblank 2025-09-2619:09 > "Remember the "computer is never wrong" Fujitsu scandal?"
For anyone outside the UK who doesn't know this reference, the UK Post Office (originally the state postal system, privatised by this time) paid Fujitsu to build a computer system. It had bugs which made it look like money was going missing. The bugs were reported, and ignored. The Post Office prosecuted employees for theft and fraud over sixteen years, ruining hundreds of lives and reputations, sending hundreds of people to prison, and causing some suicides.
It eventually came out as an investigative journalism story that the system was at fault, the people were innocent, and the Post Office knew about the bugs right from the start and had been hiding them from the police/courts. "In 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak described the scandal as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history" that's almost 10 years after it ended and 25 years after it started, rather too late to undo all the harm.
By ascorbic 2025-09-2620:21 I've had a very similar journey. I also campaigned against them, rejoiced when the hard drives were shredded after the election. I am now less worried. The devil is in the detail, and the issue last time was in the database rather than the cards. That said, I think since then we have bigger concerns, and if an ID app alleviates some concerns about immigration then I'm fine with it. One big thing that has happened since then is GDS – the various GOV.UK apps tend to be actually good. I recently used the new GOV.UK One Login app to renew my driving licence and it was impressively good.
By card_zero 2025-09-271:36 I dug up some antique privacy anxiety from Duncan Campbell in 1986, about the National Insurance numbercards introduced in 1984.
https://archive.org/details/onrecordsurveill0000camp/page/88...
It's an interesting museum piece.
> Through this new network, much personal information which the individual has to provide, for example to claim a benefit, or to an employer - will be routed through successive computers to wind up on a ‘central index’. Even if no new law is passed, the effect of the system will be to create a national population register which each individual is obliged to inform of changes of name and address (and often a great deal more). Moreover, by the same time, the majority of adults (on present plans) will have been issued with a National Insurance (NI) ‘Numbercard’, laying an easy basis for the future introduction of a national identity-card system.
> Since the start of 1984, a NI Numbercard - resembling a standard plastic credit card, complete with signature space and a magnetic strip encoding the bearer’s name and number — has been issued to everyone reaching the age of 16, and to anyone else registering in the NI system for the first time or applying for a new card.
> Eventually, the cards could be used in automatic readers, similar to the present automatic telling machines (ATMs, or cash dispensers) installed by most banks.
> Despite government claims to the contrary, the Lindop committee concluded that the British NI number was already close to being used as a personal identity system. Although no further government proposals have been made for the use of the NI Numbercard, it is fairly certain that - for benefit claimants at least - its carrying will become obligatory. It did not take long for suggestions about compulsory carrying of NI cards to creep into public discussion. In August 1984, in what NCCL called the ‘thin end of a nasty wedge’, the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons suggested that casual workers should be issued with the new Numbercards and required to produce their cards when being paid - so that information about payments made to them could be collated successfully by the Inland Revenue.
Here's also a picture of the thing in an advert in Smash Hits:
https://archive.org/details/smash-hits-5-18-june-1985/page/n...
I think they got rid of the magnetic strip at some point, and it never became mandatory to carry them or show them.
Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain.
Also, please authenticate with your digital ID before posting on social media.
By tempodox 2025-09-2617:19 Not even a joke, but only a question of time.
By tedk-42 2025-09-2612:05 And we never heard from then again. Case in point of how someone likes something in theory but in practice it's distasteful.
By celticninja 2025-09-2612:173 reply That is not a requirement though. And if it came in I would be against it. So what is your point?
By gadders 2025-09-2614:50 Like they wouldn't bring it in to combat "mis-information" i.e. viewpoints they don't like.
Yet. This slope looks very slippery in the year of the Online Safety Act.
With your logic, everything can be used, or change to be used in a bad way, so nothing should be changed. There is never a guarantee. Seriously, is there anything which cannot be changed to be shit, in the best case to be a worthless money pit?
Edit: btw this proposal already has something which can be criticised: ID on mobile phones… so probably they’d lock everybody into a duopoly.
By array_key_first 2025-09-2619:201 reply Yes, let's build the nuke and then put it in the center of London with a big red button. But don't worry, nobody will push the button.
Or, proposal B: don't build the nuke.
By ruszki 2025-09-270:18 Yes? They can kill half Europe with a single nuclear power plant if they really want. They are safe only for accidents, and external sabotage. They are absolutely not for intentional internal fuck ups. The whole system is built on that most workers there don’t want that. The whole system is built on trust.
By DangitBobby 2025-09-2619:001 reply You're arguing that the installation of a literal surveillance apparatus should be tolerated because technology can almost always be used for evil.
By ruszki 2025-09-270:29 No, I’m arguing that it can be used for good, and it shouldn’t be dismissed when it cannot be used for evil things by law, especially not because of future possible evil usage, because that’s true for everything. Btw, why do use the internet? It’s quite contradictory to argue about this here. And that is the case since almost its inception.
By EasyMark 2025-09-2621:08 What do you have to hide? Why are you against adding just a little more to the law to protect the children?
What does any of that have to do with an ID card?
Many countries have had ID cards for decades, yet don't have any digital ID system whatsoever.
By array_key_first 2025-09-2619:191 reply Nothing but I thought we were talking about digital id.
By lxgr 2025-09-2620:20 At least three comment levels up from mine are about ID cards, not digital ID.
> Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number
The police can and will request this information from you, digital ID or not. If you have actual beef with digital ID, present it.
They can certainly ask, but at the moment can they jail you simply for not answering?
By GeoAtreides 2025-09-2617:10 yes. yes they can.
They'll invoke one of the more ambiguous sections, it's usually the anti-terrorism one, but sometimes is the anti-drugs one (i can't remember the numbers), and they'll detain then arrest you and haul you to the police station.
You can complain later, and maybe get some pounds out of it, but make no mistake: if the uk police wants you identified, they will identify you.
By ratelimitsteve 2025-09-2618:261 reply there's a difference between "the police can request this information from an individual" and "this information will be automatically gathered from everyone at all times and stored by the state". for one, there are circumstances in which the police are allowed to request that information and you can say "no", and there are also practical limits to the number of police that can be out requesting. The central equivalence you're trying to draw here is simply false.
By EasyMark 2025-09-2621:11 Especially when they drop NFC into it and put up observation posts around the city
By mytailorisrich 2025-09-2612:16 No, police cannot.
The government is pushing Digital IDs on rubbish claims (obviously won't do anything about illegal immigration). Everyone can see that.
So what does this mean about their actual aims?
Interesting. We could turn it into a logical argument just so we can see if this is the case. The course of the argument is:
> Could you explain what is so distasteful about ID cards?"
which is roughly how humans say "ID cards are okay" (P0)
> I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card', but I certainly don't want to take that out with me to prove my age.
which is roughly how humans say "We already collect information that would be on an ID card and store it against a passport" (P1) provided only for completeness because it is not used later
> "Could you please give me your real name "celticninja", your phone number, your address, your NI number -- oh, and you'll need to install this app on your phone which I promise will never be used to monitor your location, purchases, friends. Then I'll explain."
which is roughly how humans say "If (ID cards are okay) (P0 again) then (there should be no problem sharing that information with me, a stranger) (P2). But (there should be no problem sharing the information with me, a stranger) (P2 again) - is absurd"
Therefore, if all of these were logical, then indeed this is a valid proof that ID cards are not okay by reductio ad absurdum, a valid proof technique.
I suppose the gap in the argument is in the logical statement P0 => P2. If some chain of argument could provide P0 => P2 then this would indeed be a valid proof of the falsehood of P0 by reductio ad absurdum to P2 an absurd conclusion. Of course I wrote it out to illustrate, but it was obvious it was reductio ad absurdum.
It just strikes me as curious that someone would point that out. A bit like saying "syllogism" when someone makes a one-step logical conclusion, which is not something that humans usually post on web forums. Then again, if you say "Knowledge is power" someone will inevitably say "France is bacon" ;) so there's a bit of an ability to prompt things out of human beings that only has phatic purpose. Perhaps Latin, in particular, draws this out of someone but I'd think it odd if people went around saying "quod erat demonstrandum" in replies to someone who proved something.
By card_zero 2025-09-272:32 I suspect this particular human was trying to say "straw man fallacy" but ended up with "reductio ad absurdum" instead, which is pretty much the opposite. If you think the first thing entails the second thing then you've executed a successful absurdum, if you think it doesn't then the second thing is a straw man. These are both annoying ways to wrangle about perceptions.
Not really. British governments have always been increasingly authoritarian.
The stated reason is to stop illegals working.
Unfortunately we have an ID for working, called a national insurance number. We literally can't get legally paid without it.
So a National ID card ... Is irrelevant. You still need this number for benefits, etc.
I've got an NI number, a driving license and a passport. Not to mention a NHS number.
I don't need another form of identification to link together everything about me so my government can leak everywhere.
NI is not ID for working. It's a tax identifier.
The ID for working system is https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work , with its digital ID "share code" https://www.gov.uk/view-right-to-work
(what does the digital ID scheme add to this again?)
Yes, and to be paid via PAYE you need a NI number.
The prove right to work is a slightly newer thing thats additional
The nuance is that you can have a NI number, then have your visa lapse for whatever reason - you still have the NI number. Hence the requirement to prove your right to work through another means.
Previously you could use proof of British nationality or a physical biometric residence card - but they've been replaced by the digital share code system (which tbh hasn't been too bad)
No, those are still the ways of proving you have the right to work, it’s only if you’re not a national that you need the share code.
By mnahkies 2025-09-2618:23 Sorry I worded that poorly - I was trying to make the point that citizens prove their right to work using passport/birth certificate, and until recently visa holders used a physical BRP, and now a digital system (which oddly enough uses your expired/redundant BRP number as a username)
By IanCal 2025-09-2618:16 The share code stuff is not for nationals. It’s not clear to me exactly how it works and whether it’s scalable.
By whywhywhywhy 2025-09-2615:10 >I mean if you have a passport then you already have an 'ID card',
So why do we need this digital ID then?
By v3xro 2025-09-2619:38 I am sure by now it has been explained by others. But basically - an ID document is like a bearer token that does not need to call a central authority every time it is verified. I am sure there are cases where it is, but a digital token that is linked to location every time it is verified is a quite different thing. Currently in the UK the law states that ultimately only a court can force you to identify yourself - by which time hopefully the purpose for which identification is being done is quite a serious and valid one. Making it cheaper to track people is not exactly a goal worth pursuing in my (not so humble) opinion.
To add to this - there is very rarely in my mind a need for someone to actually identify themselves - there are plenty of examples where it's useful for *audit* purposes to have a record, or to have a role-based credential to be able to do a thing, but *identity*?
By EasyMark 2025-09-2621:06 Should be used for basic things like driving a car or signing up for a government service. Should be used to determine if you can make money to survive on or walk down the street without being stopped to very that you as a brown person are legit. "What are you doing in this part of town? Your sort isn't usually around this area"
> to prove my age
If you want to prove your age, there are a host of *voluntary* forms of identity you can carry if you wish to do so. Please tell me how a new *compulsory* scheme (with privacy invading overreach) is going to help you.
I mean most pubs only allows passports and driving licenses. the latter has a compulsion to keep it updated.
By v3xro 2025-09-2619:43 And even then you're never asked for it if you look over 25. Which is fair - if in doubt, verify, but usually you don't need to give over your *identity* to a place that serves alcohol.
By ninalanyon 2025-09-2621:16 What I find distasteful about them is the lies and prevarications that surround them.
By blipvert 2025-09-2619:01 It’s not an ID card.
I am quite confused by this point:
> A new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working
If you are an immigrant you already have to prove your right to work with a share code:
https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-onli...
And if you claim to be a citizen you must show a passport or birth certificate:
https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work
So how exactly will this new digital ID help "stop those with no right to be here from being able to find work"?
Showing a birth certificate isn’t a particularly hard bar to pass if you want to fake that you’re a national to be fair. You need just that and a printed letter and there’s nothing an employer will do beyond copying that (afaik you can’t look up a birth certificate and check it’s valid)
By zahllos 2025-09-2621:03 You can sort of look up a birth certificate but the service isn't designed for that. It is here: https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/
This is where you get certified copies should you ever need that for interfacing with foreign governments that want them (the European country I live in very much wants a copy of my birth certificate).
It's not an identity check by any means but a legitimate birth certificate ought to be findable here.
But yes birth cert + utility bill is a very, very weak binding to identity.
But it would need to align with the records associated with their NI number no?
By crimsoneer 2025-09-2619:551 reply Ni number isn't associated to a photo, and selling or trading them is piss easy
Is this a real thing? It would be essentially identity fraud and having more than a couple of jobs linked on PAYE at the same time would likely raise a flag somewhere in the government
By flumpcakes 2025-09-2621:131 reply Yes - people are getting tax bills from HMRC after selling their national insurance numbers to dozens of people for them to work illegally, not realising they will be on the hook for the tax which will the affect their benefit claims (child tax credits, etc.)
By pera 2025-09-2621:55 But then the government should also know where to find all these unauthorised workers, I can't imagine how could anyone pull this off for more than a couple of months without getting arrested (or at the very least losing their job)
By subscribed 2025-09-2619:47 Because this is a straight up lie Starmer says to try to win at least one Farage supporter and get printed in the Torygraph.
By nullbyte 2025-09-2622:31 This is my thought exactly. Don't they already have something like SSN to identify people in Britain? I don't see how a digital ID would be any better.
By brikym 2025-09-2622:32 1) Cause a problem 2) Introduce a 'solution'
By basisword 2025-09-2619:17 Easier to check during a raid? There’s no requirement to have a birth certificate or passport or other ID on your person. If they currently check national insurance numbers and names you can give someone else’s (no photo).
By mytailorisrich 2025-09-2614:311 reply You are correct and this won't help. The government is using deceit and dishonesty to push this proposal but I think people can see through it. That should really raise a red flag.
By baggachipz 2025-09-2619:21 Just like people saw through Brexit, eh? Sorry, I say this from Trumpistan.
