Is the United Kingdom more Opposed to Identity Cards than the United States?

Barrister Amanda Jones

Recently Julia Hanna and I spoke with Barrister Amanda Jones about a constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom brought about by the suspension of Parliament by the Queen upon the request of Prime Minister Boris Johnson in order to allow the secession of  the United Kingdom from the European Union to be carried out smoothly according to the Brexit plan.

Originally, it seemed as if the suspension of Parliament had been a routine practice, but later judicial review ruled that the suspension (called a "prorogation")  had been unlawful. ([2019] UKSC 41)

'
The text of Lady Hale's decision can be read in full here:  https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

Relevant portions of the published opinion  explaining the rationale behind the decision read as follows:

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect offrustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful."

In other words, the court decided that since the suspension of Parliament had the effect of preventing Parliament from carrying out its legislative duties (rather than being for a special occasion or holiday)  the suspension was unlawful, regardless of  what the Prime Minister intended.

For Americans with a written constitution,  it is surprising that the British system contains so many checks and balances and all based on an unwritten framework of law. But to me, listening to Amanda Jones discuss the case, the thing that struck me as most counterintuitive, though it was just an aside, was the fact that the British have no identity cards.

Amanda Jones: The UK doesn't have an identity card, but quite a few EU countries do. But you don't need one to travel between the UK and Ireland, because it's a common travel area. But if you turn up... If you try to enter the UK from France without a passport you won't succeed.... Our passports are biometric,... but we don't have official ID cards here. We just don't have them. I suppose a driving license you can use as photographic identity, but not everybody has a driving license, if you don't drive.... ID cards here are quite unpopular as a concept. We had them during the Second World War. Everybody had an ID card... And the government quite liked it. It's very useful keeping tabs on people, but eventually ... people just refused to accept it, and refused to provide them, and refused to carry them, and they were abolished in the 1950s.. ... You don't actually need to carry your driving license, either. ...But if you are stopped by the police, they can say that within seven days you have to take it to your nearest police station..    (starting at the 0:5749 mark in the video. )

While the United States has also traditionally had a strong resistance to the idea of requiring an identity card, the social security card is used as some kind of national identity card, and the push for real ID in driver's licenses has created a number of official identity cards that most people find it impossible to live their daily lives without possessing these documents.

If citizens of the UK can drive and travel within their country without carrying an identity card or driver's license with them, and Americans cannot, does it mean that in this sense the United Kingdom is more free?