Please note: This post is also available on my Substack
********************************
UK social media was alight a couple of days ago (at the time of writing) with various individuals and groups congratulating each other, and even taking credit, for forcing the Labour government into an ignominious “climb-down” or embarrassing “U-turn” on digital ID.
A tiny gaggle of politicians patted themselves on the back for defeating the government, claiming “mandatory digital ID is dead.” Popular talking heads were thanking their “fellow activists” for showing the government what “people power really means” and various “independent media” figures were effusing about the successful “push-back against digital ID.”
The message came through loud and clear. If we act in unison, the government has to listen and respond. The representative democratic system works. TRUST THE SYSTEM!
Unfortunately, celebration was a bit premature because the great movement of the people, the millions of petition signatures, the protests and the stiff letters to MP’s have made no difference whatsoever to the government’s push to enforce digital ID—digital identity—on all of us.
Speaking the day after propagandists ran countless articles and reports claiming “mandatory digital ID” had been shelved, Prime Minister Keir Starmer told parliament:
There will be checks. They will be digital and they will be mandatory.
The mythical BritCard has been abandoned but, as I pointed out more or less as soon as it was launched, the governments proposed mandatory digital ID—BritCard—was never a real thing. It was purely a propaganda construct and had nothing to do with the actual problem we face which is the interoperable digital identity system.
********************************
[Please watch the video below which was filmed shortly before the stories about defeating BritCard were published. I discuss the true nature of digital identity with Ant Critchley from Becoming Stellify]
- You can watch the whole discussion HERE.
- Ant Critchley’s Becoming Stellify
- Support Ant Critchley’s work
- Watch on Odysee
********************************
By using the BritCard deception to misrepresent digital identity, the government provided the people with a loathed bogeyman they could easily defeat. The evident ploy was supposed to lull the people into accepting their digital identities by convincing them they had successfully rejected the fake BritCard version of digital ID. Hence all the misplaced celebration which arose solely in response to completely meaningless propaganda stories.
It is hard to say to what extent this propaganda strategy has worked. Who knows how many people imagine they won’t be subject to digital identity as a result? Clearly, a proportion of the population has not fallen for it but that didn’t stop some politicians trying to capitalise on the propaganda that served their interests.
On 27th September 2025, with regard to BritCard, I wrote:
The most likely outcome is that as anger is stoked and resentment swells, the completely unnecessary BritCard will be flung out along with the Labour government: again.
The door will then be open for the political saviours, be they the Tories, Reform or whomever, to come to power promising never to subject us to any more of these idiotic government issued ID schemes.
However, to keep pace with the digital revolution, our digital infrastructure, our cards and licenses, will need to be upgraded to facilitate the necessary interoperability.
Voila! We will rejoice in our victory and accept digital ID without even knowing it.
Low and behold, perhaps the most ridiculous claim of “victory” came from Nigel Farage who, representing Reform UK, said:
Keir Starmer has abandoned plans for the Digital ID to be compulsory. This is a victory for individual liberty against a ghastly, authoritarian government. Reform UK would scrap it altogether.
This was a monumentally facile PR win for Reform UK, or at least an attempt to gain that advantage. In truth, digital identity is a worldwide project backed by the entire global public-private partnership. Even if they were willing, which none are, no government—better described as functional oligarchies—can defeat the digital identity agenda.
Imposing digital identity on every human being on earth is United Nations SDG 16.9 for crying out loud. Do you really think that Reform UK can or will even try to overturn that?
We, on the other hand, can defeat real digital identity in the UK if we are serious about mass non compliance.
********************************
[Please watch the video below. Ant Chritchley and I consider possible solutions. We discuss how The Politics of Obedience has brought us to this point and how, if we accept it, digital identity will create state control mechanisms that will move the state beyond the need for propaganda, political authority or even law—the Agentic State.]
-
Watch on Odysee
********************************
Regardless of the stories the government and its partners want us to believe about digital ID, if we wish to retain what little freedom we have left, we have no choice but to defend ourselves against the impending tyranny of digital identity?
In the UK we have a written codified constitution—Magna Carta—which government refuses to acknowledge. We also have a legal copy—the Bill of Rights and other legal documents—masquerading as an uncodified constitution. Nonetheless, in the written codified constitution and in its cobbled-together legal simulacrum, there is an indubitable constitutional truth recognised and common to both: we are all equal before the law.
That we are all equal before the law is supposed to be the founding principle of our so-called “representative democracy.” Therefore, while we are peaceful and cause neither harm nor loss to any other person, all of us in the UK have the constitutional right to act freely absent any interference, molestation or punishment meted out by the government and its enforcers. Of course, we all know this is not what happens in reality.
The government—the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary—consistently ignores this founding constitutional principle of our allegedly democratic society. Instead, the government either pretends we have no constitutional right or freedoms or exclusively applies them only to itself using what we might call the Octavian Principle:
The Octavian Principle – the enduring institutional doctrine that constitutions, rules and safeguards are only invoked, respected, or defended when the personal interests, reputation, or security of those in power are at risk of exposure or disrepute.
Government asserts that it can “create or end any law.” That is to say, the government demands that we accept that it is more equal before the law than the rest of us. The Octavian Principle is exemplified by the governments unconstitutional and, therefore, apparently unlawful claim that “Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.”
So which is it? Are we all equal before the law or is Parliament sovereign? We have the right to an answer because the suggested mutually exclusive contradiction cannot possibly exist in reality.
Private corporations are free to implement digital identity systems if they wish. Equally, we have the right not to use them.
If the corporate imposition of digital identity leaves those of us who do not consent unable to buy essential commodities—water, food, shelter, transport, energy, fuel, etc.—then the government must step aside while we build the parallel system we will need to survive. If it legislates or regulates to stop us building and operating that vital parallel system, then corporate diktat rules above the law and we are clearly not all equal before the law.
If the government maintains that we are all equal before the law, it cannot force us to use digital identity systems to which we do not consent. Government cannot lawfully deny us access to public sector services we pay for by compelling us to use digital identity gateways like One Login. If it does, and does not provide an alternative non-digital route, we are not all equal before the law.
If we are all equal before the law, the government must either provide means and ways for us to access essential public services, without using any form of digital identity, or must agree that we are exempt from paying—taxation—for services we cannot access.
If it doesn’t, and we are forced by some supposed legal mechanism to use either private or public digital identity systems without our consent, no matter what the government proclaims, we most assuredly are not all equal under the law.
If so, the whole edifice of purportedly democratic government is demonstrably nothing but a facade thinly veiling a public-private state dictatorship and we can all proceed on that clearly understood basis.
********************************
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Every time I see ‘Magna Carta’, ‘English Constitution’ or even ‘The Nuremburg Codes’ cited as examples of codified Law in the common people’s right to redress, usurp or change the diktats of tyranny, I feel that familiar dull feeling of despair. Why is it that Magna Carta is not read clearly within the context of history? When the ‘freedom of the land’ pundit’ were throwing this document about in the early 2000’s I read it twice through to make sure I’d understood its meaning. It was contradicting what was being presented as a life-raft to the Good Ship Lollipop away from the dens of iniquity. The document basically disables the King (and therefore the traditional head of the people) in favour of the French Baroncy and those they awarded the title of ‘Freemen’. The Barons gave title of the lands to the jurisdiction of The Pope, under their administration. Not of benefit to the serfs, slaves, servants, workers, exploited. It’s as if the invasion of 1066 by The Foreigners had never happened. The English Constitution was instituted by William and Mary on an act of Regicide. Again, the common folk and cannon fodder would be exempt. Civil wars, revolution, reformation, Cest Que Ve Trust handed even the ‘souls’ of the folk over to Rome, to be regulated by ‘The Lords Spiritual and Temporal’ as they still declare today in the opening paragraph of every ACT. No, none of it is Law of Land and folk of the land, but a usurping Merchants’ Legislature within which each is commodified to be bought and sold, utilised for profit in a debt-based economy. Pirates care not for Law, neither do the Swiss Banking Cabal of which CoL’s Baroncy is, or has been, the umbilical chord.
Just to add on the ruse of ‘The Constitution’ using former America for example. Prior to this ‘Constitution of No Constitution’ Americans had ‘Articles of Confederacy’ ratifying the freedom of each State to conduct itself independently yet co-operatively with other States. There was no Federal, Centralised Authority. The B’rits Civil War destroyed the independence of the Southern States in the most rapacious and brutal manner, imposing ‘Citizenship’ obligations on all under Crown Control. People are so mislead in defence of a privately agreed set of mandates when all dissenters party to discussion had refused to sign it for good reason. Religious Freedom granted to all who entered, was to prove a fatal ‘oversight’ given the outcomes so perniciously exploited. The Bill of Rights would have sufficed but the Articles of Confederacy would be the backbone, much as Natural Law, is the structure to which all other legislature must conform.
Thanks SG. Speaking as it does about setting the English Church “free” with “its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired” by the Papacy “in perpetuity,” I am not sure I agree that the Barons gave title of lands to the jurisdiction of the Pope. Sure, the notion of a “Free Man” was heavily restricted by the hierarchy of the day but, equally, universal suffrage only became “law” in the UK in 1928. So that’s like saying the English 1688 Bill of Rights only applies to men.
Of course we have to view documents in the context of their times, which were very different from those that endure today. That is why it is important to recognise the principles codified by documents like the Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights for that matter, rather than apply them strictly within the bounds of the social structure of their time. Obviously, a “Free Man” today is not only both male and female, but also is not restricted to a land-titled baron any more than being a “voter” is restricted solely to men.
In the Magna Carta’s case, the agreement included not being forced to build bridges, not having your horse seized and not allowing women to appeal against any judgment accept one that is held against her husband. None of which is strictly relevant today. However, there most certainly are very important key principles expressed in the Magna Carta. The right to equality before the law the most important in my view [Article 39 & 40].
That said, to my mind a “constitution” is just a bit of paper that has no meaning unless the agreements it codifies are adhered to. My point is that we are told that constitutions matter and they are supposedly the foundation of our political society. I will add, I consider this to be total nonsense. It is glaringly obvious that those who rule us could not care less about constitutions and they never have. They are not worth the paper they are written on because they have no impact at all on exertion of oligarch serving force by any state.
My point is that these constitutional arrangements are supposed to define and limit the power of the state. The state tells us these constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges are the basis for its alleged authority when clearly that is not true at all. So, for us, defining what those rights and privileges are “supposed” to be matters. But only insofar as they highlight the degree to which constitutions mean nothing in any practical sense.
It is this disconnect between the constitutional stories we are told and the reality of state power that reveals that the alleged foundation of the state is a lie. The state is, in truth, totally unconstitutional and represents nothing other than the unbridled use of coercion, deception and force.
Once we grasp this fact, where we go from there is, I suggest, up to us.
Amazing Talk ‘Fake Digital ID “Victory” ‘ – Parts 1, 2. Thank you Iain. I’m Passing it on to others in Canada and US.
You’re most welcome Lumen.