Digital ID with a twist.

Nothing is what it seems.

It’s the story that simply wnt go away. We here’s some good news. Mexico had digital ID shoved down their necks. They stilll siad no. Mexican people won. Why, because ultimately, the people are sovereign and the people give soveriegnty to a government. Never forget that.

On every front and in every nation on earth that has managed to access the Internet, there is a clearly visible path from “We are here” to a red line that says, “No to Digital ID” and it does this in a manner that spells out global unrest on a scale never before even imagined, certainly at least, not globally.
Digital ID is in your face because first the EU, the richest group of nations on earth and then the UK are stubbornly on a path to telling European people the date, very soon, on which they are expected to hand over the keys to their lives to the state and it promises to be done in such a way as to suggest “there is simply no likelihood of your rejecting our instructions”.
It hardly surprises anyone that neither British, nor Europeans or indeed Americans, Australians or the others being lined up for this fate, will trust any government with so much power over our daily lives.
Sound like a standoff? Well thats certainly where it would appear to be headed.

There is reputedly a social contract, suppose we dig it out?

Why did you and I just accept that certain people can set out to become part of government and make the decisions that have such enormous affects on our very lives? perhaos weve never been challenged, well thats over, times have changed.
Do we trust them? Maybe we’ve no choice, or maybe we believe we have no choice, or it may even be that the risk of accepting this imposition is less painful to us than the challenge of fighting it, In other words, we live in hope. Not any more.

There is said to be a ‘Social Contract’ between the led and those that lead. This contract is reputed to define an agreement preventing the led from being abused and outlines what is or is not acceptable. Like myself, you will not ever have seen it and that is because in reality, such a document doesn’t exist, though a professionally written constitution makes a weak attempt at such a contract, most of the important stuff however remains unwritten.

The three wise men.
Three well-known Philosophers put in a great deal of thought that guided our Western world from being independent savages in family groups to nations with contracts of a sort.
The earliest was Hobbs[i] whose basic theory was that in order to have someone or something that will protect us from being attacked, the only solution is to hand over control to a single Monarch with absolute power, a Sovereign. The people have no power and no say. Hence the early use of the word Sovereign.

Locke[ii] moved forward a long way from Hobbs to the notion that instead of a Monarch we would be better served by a democratic government. In its simplest terms, the key difference is that the people are Sovereign and rule is by agreement or permission.

The last person to quote the Social Contract with any seriousness was one of my favourite philosophers Jean Jacques Rousseau[iii] who authored a famous book of that title. Rousseau felt challenged by the thought that nobody ever sat down and agreed this idea and hence how could a contract have existed. Your own thoughts no doubt, but he arrived at the conclusion, shared around the globe largely, that by not saying no in a formal way (that would have involved swords) we effectively agreed to the contract not just once but over time. I personally agree with this view. The fact that we see ourselves as a nation even without necessarily all having been born in the same country, tells you that there are a great many unspoken and certainly not written contracts that we agree to and are bound by day-to-day as a society. Spend a weekend on a Spanish beach and you will be left in no doubt, watching the different ethnics organise themselves. A better way to understand this for most of us, is to compare it to the relationship we have with our mothers. That contract was never written down, but it’s remarkably similar everywhere you go and few children or indeed mothers, ever consider reneging on it.

Strangely enough a small group of technologists in USA have begun to challenge the efficiency of democracy and are now suggesting that the best route, for them (I’ve never heard them dwell on the rights or the needs of the poor or the ordinary workers) is an absolute Monarchy modelled closely on the notion of a Silicon Valley CEO.
The man generally cited for introducing these ideas is an American Blogger name Curtis Yarvin[iv] . I’ve read no plans about how this idea might be foisted on a population brought up on freedom and democracy and spreading it globally with bombs, but you hopefully get my drift.

To wrap up on Social Contract and what it might be, it describes an unwritten but unconsciously (and there lies the potential for issues) accepted agreement to support a democratic government, while retaining Sovereignty which generally is executed via the ballot box. While some might take our rough consensus on the scope of the contract to suggest that we also agreed that things naturally change and we will deal with that when it comes along. Well perhaps, but I would set out my stall where it says, “we will deal with that.”

Digital ID, what it says, but more importantly what it never mentions.

First and foremost, let’s be clear; Digital ID is not a harmless ID to let over 16s keep using the internet, while the children are banned. The children are not the ones asked to carry their digital ID, but rather the adults are.
This latter, clearly defines the EU and UK project as digital ID for everyone being presented dishonestly to the public and if we don’t say no very loudly and insistently for a long time and be prepared for what we may need to do, Digital ID can at the wish of the UK or EU, or our direct government, control every aspect of our lives and we are in little doubt that it will indeed do exactly that.
By every aspect, I mean things like Bank accounts and whether our godlike boss is happy for us to continue accessing our money. It would mean that Our money was no longer ours. Think about that and all the ramifications.
The government of the day could instantly ban us from using the Internet, email, our telephones, stop our cars working, theres no end to it.

The examples I listed here are known to be remotely possible because all of these devices and many others already contain the spyware to do it. The citizens were never informed about someone (who precisely) spying on us as we drive, watch TV, or chat with our families.
The full scope of technology spying is far beyond the scope of this piece but serves to establish that all of it is enabled by digital ID to become a weapon capable of targeting an individual to silence them or otherwise remove their Sovereignty over self.

Why do so many readers believe this? Well over the past year we have seen:

· Information withholding by governments is a persistent issue, often justified under “national security,” while independent journalism acts as a critical, albeit persecuted, check on state power. Recent instances in Israel, the UK, and the USA highlight this dynamic. [1, 2]

· British and other citizens, including pensioners, arrested for attending a demonstration against the states actions or statements on our behalf. [v]

· Doctors prevented from working as punishment for holding the wrong opinion, Key cases and controversies as of early 2026 include:

o Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan: Suspended for 15 months in late 2025 by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) following investigation into social media posts deemed antisemitic and supportive of terrorism, according to reports from The Guardian and Combat Antisemitism. [1, 2]

o Dr. Nadeem Haddadin-Crowe: A British-Jordanian emergency medicine doctor suspended after posting content regarding Gaza on social media, sparking discussions on the weaponization of the IHRA definition of antisemitism to censor criticism of Israel, as reported by The Electronic Intifada. [1]

o Dr. Cinderella Nonoo-Cohen: A Jewish GP suspended for four months in early 2026 for making Islamophobic comments on a WhatsApp group and on X, as detailed by The BMJ. [1]

· Several high-profile cases in the UK between 2023 and 2025 have highlighted instances where individuals and groups claimed their bank accounts were closed or frozen due to their political activities, views, or opposition to government policies. This is also a phenomenon at a global level This phenomenon, often termed “de-banking,” prompted the UK government to introduce new regulations in April 2025 to protect customers from having accounts closed due to their lawful political opinions. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. One victim was a well-funded politician, or perhaps you guessed.

· Globally: Financial deplatforming raises concerns about privacy and government interference in banking, challenging the balance between convenience and freedom.[vi]

It is hardly surprising that people around the world are nervous about the future for democracy, for themselves and the futures of their children. They feel powerless in the face of technology that they mostly don’t understand and feel they need a state that defends them rather than appearing increasingly to be part of the problem if not worse.

What this small sample of information tells us is that when it suits them and that seems to be increasingly so, governments everywhere are happy to ignore legal processes and simply reach out to access information to which they are legally not entitled, block platforms from publishing information they wish to keep out of the public hands with no legal argument or worse, to illegally cover up their actions.
We increasingly see individuals stuck in airports unable to travel, unable to get jobs and support their families and treated as criminals without ever being charged.
Whatever the arguments might be for such behaviour, it tells citizens that they are not safe, their government is not on their side, their police forces are not in love with the law and our colleagues feel that they need to take a stronger interest in democracy if their world is to remain a safe place.
The obvious power grab aspect of Digital ID is a self-professed watershed in the tug of war that is, governments grab for power versus citizens need to speak up for themselves.

Another day, I will spell out just how huge the potential scope of this power is, but for now, it is surely sufficient to focus on continuing to be free individuals, with ownership and control of our money, our homes, our cars, what we read or do not read, what we believe and to a very large degree, what we say, as long as no damage is intended.

The risk to you and I and to our families

A government with control of an ID that is capable of controlling just these items can and certainly will use them against us whenever it suits. In fact, we all know that the more power you concede to someone else, regardless how their attitude started out, the more power-hungry they will generally become as described more effectively in the work of Dalberg and Rousseau [vii] and of Professor Dacher Keltner[viii] and his research on power. Keltner’s work (e.g., The Power Paradox) shows that:

• People who gain power can become less empathetic.
• They may act more impulsively or self-servingly over time.

Many believe that this project addressing Digital ID is simply an attempt to grab enormous levels of state power over individuals under the guise of safeguarding the children. Others trust the EU, UK, US and these trusting folk will all be worried about the children, but not enough so to demand the trial and punishment of Trump and the many Europeans named in the Epstein affair for raping or abusing children. There are a few wise souls who point to the domianton of Trump by Silicon Valley money and promotion as the lever, while Tech power in its battle with Europe over domination of data ownership is the engine. More to come on this.

Indeed if we remain awake and consider the discussion we just had on how this contract even came about, we then must realise that at some point it was globally accepted that regular elections are vital for the wellbeing of democracy and surely that alone goes further than any of the gentlemen above to establish beyond doubt that serious decisions must be made by the electorate and not only that, they must be fully understood along with all likely outcomes and implications.

The other powerful argument and certainly not the only one is the fact that no discussion or debate of any kind however informal has occurred to establish with the electorate the drivers for this suggested legislation, nor indeed the potentially different possible solutions to the problem once it has been examined and broken down as would be normal for any honest and modestly competent leadership team.
This lack of openness, beginning with an obviously misleading description of the problem domain and lack of any attempt to debate the issue is enough argument all on its own to sound the alarm and signal the need for a slam on the brakes.

Conclusion

In summary.

1. we have looked at the idea of Social contract and without sinking too deep into a philosophical discussion, I believe we were able to amply establish that not only does such a contract exist and carry legal clout, it is especially relevant to the current situation.
Should the EU abandon their post by pushing this responsibility down to the sovereign states, then they have not only demonstrated the dishonesty in their approach, but relieved themselves of any authority or even influence they might have had. They have also at one stroke, made it impossible to administer such a scheme from EU central.

2. We have uncovered the simple idea that we all bear responsibility for the fact that leadership of all kinds including democracy are not trustworthy and require the attention of citizens to the detail of all key decisions whether or not the appointed leaders ask for it. The ultimate responsibility lies not with the EU, followed by the Nation state as an example, but rather the opposite: The citizen is the ultimate sovereign, the Nation State is directly responsible to the citizen and the EU answers to the Nation state. That is the basis of democracy as defined and developed by the peoples of Europe and copied around the globe and no amount of Social Media control, blackmail, or any of the standard democratic tools of the current century changes that situation.

3. Digital ID is a solution, not a problem, at least not yet, the Digital ID problem is just down the road. Asking an intelligent citizenry to accept a solution without first agreeing that there is a problem, it is solvable and the proposed solution can and is expected to solve it, is a modern-day form of negotiation, better known as “the con.”

4. The hidden problems, barely disguised by this proposed solution, even if it genuinely protected the children from (not yet defined), risks, unfortunately has the side-effect of removing basic sovereignty from every citizen of Europe and any other country waiting in the wings to follow suite as indeed they are.

a. Citizens lose sovereignty over their own lives. Imagine going shopping only to have your card declined (‘EU penalty, call Brussels the AI will explain’)

b. Government at London, Bussels or anywhere with agreement of Brussels or London can potentially, given existing technology, block the citizen from using appliances, using a car, getting a job or any of the basic human rights that keep him/her alive as opposed to offering any joy.

5. To accept such a clearly dishonest, unhelpful and threatening legislation would make the citizen part of the legislation and hence destroy the citizens sovereignty on top of taking his/her freedoms.

Based on the above it would seem abundantly clear that at best, London and Brussels are too lazy or perhaps incompetent to explain to their members what the problem really is, why it needs to be solved and what’s in it for us if we agree. Those basic steps would at least make the process honest, something it is not at present.
While it has to be considered that EU or UK have no intent at this point to misuse this enormous power against the people of Europe, we have established beyond any doubt that it is the responsibility of citizens to ensure that what is agreed today is not capable of supporting bad or harmful behaviour against citizens in the future.
The outcome of this Pan-European attempt will have, lasting effects on my life and my children’s lives, it will have similar impacts on you. I urge that you take a responsible view on this and whether you respond to Europe or to another nation following hot on their heels, you go forward carefully and safely and above all, informed of your responsibilities and the risks you run.

[i] Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): The earliest of the three, publishing Leviathan in 1651

[ii] John Locke (1632–1704): Known for works in the late 17th century, such as his Two Treatises of Government (1689).

[iii] Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the most recent of the three philosophers. He lived during the 18th-century Enlightenment, with his major work, The Social Contract, published in 1762. [1, 2]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): Published his major works in the mid-18th century.

[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

[v] https://www.webopedia.com/crypto/learn/governments-froze-bank-accounts/

[vi] https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/financial-deplatforming/#:~:text=There%20are%20many%20more%20examples,individuals%20and%20groups%20considered%20controversial.

[vii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton