Island Joins Uk's E-borders Programme

[Skeddan]

It's still early days, but I wonder what might end up being the arrangement as far as paying for this is concerned. According to some HMG are spending £1.2bn on this. If IOMG contribution is per capita, then about £1.6m. If this is for 'defence' shouldn't the UK pay for this - whereas if it is for immigration etc. then it wouldn't be covered by the defence contribution. As far as IoM taxpayer is concerned, isn't it better to play along with this being an 'anti-terrorism' initiative to protect security?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It's still early days, but I wonder what might end up being the arrangement as far as paying for this is concerned. According to some HMG are spending £1.2bn on this. If IOMG contribution is per capita, then about £1.6m. If this is for 'defence' shouldn't the UK pay for this - whereas if it is for immigration etc. then it wouldn't be covered by the defence contribution. As far as IoM taxpayer is concerned, isn't it better to play along with this being an 'anti-terrorism' initiative to protect security?

 

Would it really work when the Island has so little chance of being attacked?

 

I was reading what you were saying about Big Brother and Dumbocracy but there is a growing trend in the UK and the Isle of Man where the government does believe it should know more and more about its citizens.

 

What sort of legislative protection/safeguards does the Island and the UK does the Island need?

[Skeddan]

What sort of legislative protection/safeguards does the Island and the UK does the Island need?

As I said earlier I don't have much problem with APS in NZ - that's because there are pretty good democratic safeguards - better than the UK and a lot better than IoM.

 

These differences in NZ include the very strict Privacy Act, the powers of the Privacy Commissioner, a robust Bill of Rights, a Judiciary and Supreme Court that gives primacy to protection of these rights, a Judicial Complaints Commission, and a Freedom of Information Act. How information is used is strictly controlled, and there are effective protections of civil rights and liberties.

IMO there are also reasonable concerns in the UK of legislation like the Constitutional Reform Act - which gives huge emergency powers to the PM. Martial law is 'absence of law' and a state of emergency doesn't require having to give PM powers to amend legislation. Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected - the legislation then enabled them to create authoritarian state.

 

I'd think having robust and stable democratic system - e.g. as measured by Democracy Index. Also good 'whistleblower' legislation, and look to terms of reference of Security Services. Take a cynical sceptical view of loopholes that might create vulnerabilities in the system - i.e. if a PM was unscrupulous. I have confidence when I don't have to put all my faith in the PM being 'honest' and having integrity, and that abuses will be identified, brought to light and prosecuted.

 

Knowing more about citizens is ok - if for strictly controlled legitimate purposes like APS. But a government that wants this and also wants to have less checks, protections and safeguards, is IMO not a good thing - and is itself an attack on democracy. Same goes for a govt that doesn't accept that it should provide such safeguards along with the introduction of such systems.

 

If IoM has a democracy that was really healthy and robust, I doubt there'd be the kinds of concerns being expressed here. Maybe the test is what would be needed to give proper confidence and assurance that stands up to healthy scepticism. The trouble is that scepticism is being undermined also - by the media, but also by apathy and complacency - i.e. just being cynical and putting up with being fobbed off allows politicians to get away with things under a smokescreen of puff.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

IMO there are also reasonable concerns in the UK of legislation like the Constitutional Reform Act - which gives huge emergency powers to the PM. Martial law is 'absence of law' and a state of emergency doesn't require having to give PM powers to amend legislation. Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected - the legislation then enabled them to create authoritarian state.

 

But a state of emergency is different to martial law. But did you mean that the PM will have the ability to amend legislation in a state of emergency?

 

I am also interested in what you mean by the role of security services, what do you mean by terms of reference?

 

It does seem the case more and more that the government believes that more checks and safeguards are required for the people but the government should be immune from any sort of inspection and protection from the government seems to be made more difficult.

[Cronky]

It looks like Guernsey has just rolled over and let the UK tickle it's tummy over ID Cards:

 

Guernsey Press

‘Looking at our closest, largest neighbours, France already has, and has had for many years, a national identity card system and the UK Parliament has now accepted the biometric card system in principle, to come online by 2008. This is the reality for our Bailiwick.’

So, no opposition at all really.

 

‘The board has not looked at ID cards in isolation, but together with biometric e-passport issuance and e-borders.

‘Unlike ID cards, the Bailiwick really has no choice on e-passports and e-borders.’ For islanders wishing to travel anywhere, establishing identity using a machine-readable biometric e-passport or ID card will be a prerequisite in the future, he said.

So instead of an ID Card we get, er, an ID Card.

 

I would further point out that in Guernsey, particularly in relation to the elderly and the young, some local residents do not possess any form of photographic identity or driving licence at all,’ said Deputy Torode.

Forget about using your driving licence on Eurotrash or Flymaybe because they cannot swipe all your details onto an insecure UK database.

 

Police and Customs will need to invest in biometric passport and ID card-reading equipment in order to conduct internationally-accepted border controls and to participate in e-borders, he added.

So the local cops will know when you come and go along with MI5.

 

Passport to Liverpool just so long as the UK security services think its okay.