←back to thread

Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

(www.reuters.com)
525 points alex77456 | 5 comments | 26 Sep 25 02:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andyjohnson0 ◴[26 Sep 25 06:26 UTC] No.45383356[source]▶
I didn't watch the video, but have read other reports, and it's worth noting that the context for this is the Labour Party conference, which starts on Sunday. The UK govt are under pressure from the tories and Reform to do something about people entering the UK from France by crossing the channel in small boats. Nothing much seems to be working. So this announcement is about trying to control the narrative by making a big, distracting announcement. I'd mlbe surprised if many people in the government/police/civil service expect it to make a difference.

Also, seems to be intended to be mandatory and require a smartphone. Hows that going to work?

Also, what happens when the database is inevitably stolen?

replies(3): >>45383425 #>>45383499 #>>45383503 #
rich_sasha ◴[26 Sep 25 06:49 UTC] No.45383503[source]▶
The small boats crossing are a small fraction of immigration. Some Google number claims 37k people got in this way in 2024. With net migration hovering around 0.8-1m people per year, arrivals must be well above this number (surely some people are leaving, making the net number smaller). But even then, this is less than 5% of the legal immigration, and probably a lot less than that.

I'm not saying it doesn't need addressing or isn't serious, but I think it's a convenient topic for politicians. It's a lot more media-friendly than the arrivals queue at Luton Airport. And the illegal immigrants aren't the ones putting pressure on NHS, housing market or train driver unions.

replies(3): >>45383765 #>>45383795 #>>45391001 #
1. MrToadMan ◴[26 Sep 25 07:28 UTC] No.45383795[source]▶
Depends on if you are looking at this in terms of numbers of people or cost. The Home Office annual spend on processing asylum seekers has ballooned from just under £1 billion to near £5 billion in the space of 5 years, which is 1/3 of the estimated £14 billion raised from the unpopular National Insurance increase.
replies(2): >>45384187 #>>45389667 #
2. rich_sasha ◴[26 Sep 25 08:32 UTC] No.45384187[source]▶
This does indeed seem like a crazy high number.

Even then, what fraction of all asylum seekers comes via small boats, vs other means? I believe the UK is entirely within its right to send small boats asylum seekers back to France, since it is a safe country. International conventions on asylum seekers state this - you are not entitled to drive thru the whole of Europe then demand asylum specifically in the UK.

I don't want to come across as uncaring, I'm sure there are tragedies that drive people to doing this, that doesn't mean the UK has to also mismanage the process on its side.

replies(2): >>45384227 #>>45384545 #
3. detaro ◴[26 Sep 25 08:38 UTC] No.45384227[source]▶
The UK was indeed part of treaty system that meant other states had to "take back" asylum seekers that traveled through them to the UK, but it decided it was in its best interest to quit that a few years ago, so France is a lot less motivated to do that now.
4. MrToadMan ◴[26 Sep 25 09:32 UTC] No.45384545[source]▶
From what I've read, about 1/3 of all asylum seekers over the last 7 years arrived via small boat crossings.

Looking forward though, about 90% of those arriving in small boat crossings are currently going on to seek asylum and the average annual cost of supporting an asylum seeker during their claim has risen to an estimated £41k, so for ~30k arrivals this year, the financial cost of not processing these claims promptly could increase that overall annual bill further still.

Also, in the first year of processing, costs may be drawn from the overseas aid budget (which was recently shrunk). This results in possibly 1/5 of the overseas aid budget being used for costs associated with processing asylum claims, which perhaps doesn't match most people's expectations as to what overseas aid should be used for.

I think that's why even though the number of people involved in these crossings is small compared to net migration, it has a big financial impact.

5. foldr ◴[26 Sep 25 18:39 UTC] No.45389667[source]▶
We keep getting told that these people are predominantly young men of working age.

If only someone could come up with a brilliant idea which might allow them to make a long-term contribution to the economy far in excess of the cost of processing their asylum applications...