By Paul Donaghy
The Labour government’s sudden and unannounced embrace of a mandatory digital identity scheme dubbed the “Brit Card” has ignited a fierce democratic debate and accusations of a fundamental breach of trust with the electorate. What makes this move so especially contentious is the stark fact that Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto made no mention whatsoever of identity cards or a digital ID system.
Voters were never asked to endorse such a policy, yet it is now being advanced as a central plank in the government’s migration strategy. This raises one fundamental and unavoidable question: Where is the mandate?
A Policy Without Consent
The party manifesto is widely considered the contract between a political party and the electorate. By entirely omitting any plan for a mandatory digital ID, the Labour government cannot credibly claim public consent for this sweeping legislative change.
The lack of transparency surrounding the introduction of the Brit Card immediately fuels suspicion among critics. Many believe this is less about pragmatic migration control and more about a significant, and perhaps permanent, expansion of state surveillance over ordinary citizens. Civil liberties groups have already issued strong warnings, cautioning that a mandatory ID system risks pushing “unauthorised migrants further into the shadows” rather than effectively solving the problem of illegal work.
Blair’s Legacy Revived and Resurrected
The Brit Card is not an original idea; it is a ghost from the past. It is worth remembering that Tony Blair's Labour government attempted to introduce a similar ID card system in the mid-2000s. That scheme was presented as an essential tool for tackling terrorism, fraud, and illegal working. It proved deeply controversial, criticised widely as a severe erosion of civil liberties, and was ultimately scrapped by the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010.
Sign the petition
Say NO to digital ID
Picture credit, The Sun Newspaper
Why Digital ID Won’t Stop Illegal Migration
Even if one accepts the government's premise that irregular migration is a pressing national challenge, a mandatory digital ID is unlikely to deliver the promised results:
-
Small Boat Crossings: The majority of irregular arrivals are asylum seekers crossing the Channel. A domestic digital ID system is entirely irrelevant to preventing boats from leaving France or addressing the humanitarian factors driving migration.
-
Existing Checks are Redundant: You already need to provide ID to work legally in the UK. Employers must verify a passport or a biometric residence permit, and workers require a National Insurance number. These checks are already firmly in place—a digital ID system adds little new to the armoury against illegal working.
The Real Risks of 'Mission Creep'
The most significant danger inherent in the Brit Card is the inevitable erosion of civil liberties. Once introduced, history shows that digital ID schemes rarely remain confined to their original purpose. They tend to expand through a process known as 'mission creep' into policing, healthcare, and financial transactions, thereby establishing a national culture of constant verification.
What may begin as a specific migration tool risks evolving into a universal surveillance infrastructure. By introducing a policy entirely absent from its electoral manifesto, Labour is simultaneously deepening the sense of alienation and mistrust between the government and the governed.
The introduction of digital ID cards represents a power grab lacking democratic legitimacy. It was not put to the electorate, it will not stop small boat crossings, and it risks critically undermining civil liberties while utterly failing to address the root causes of illegal migration. If the government is truly serious about tackling the issue, it must look beyond recycled gimmicks and confront the structural problems: the asylum backlogs, the need for international cooperation, and the economic incentives that drive people into the shadows. Anything less is merely political theatre—at the grave expense of both liberty and public trust.
Add comment
Comments