@ Mimi

Good governance is important, and that includes effective government.  Freedom and democracy have to be fought out in the political arena, not by keeping government 'stupid, ineffective, and ignorant'.     

If you want to prevent the loss of freedom, the focus should be on ensuring the maintenance of freedom of political speech.  That is were real 'patriots' should not give an inch.   But the ignorance of government, nor the abundance of private guns, can provide a defense against abusive government.

This issue of 'secure ID's' is very similar to the gun issue, and many conservatives (especially libertarians)  are on the 'wrong' side.  The argument for private guns should be based on private needs (no machineguns needed) and 'rights', but not on the basis of a potential defense against government.   If government becomes undemocratic, it will simply take the guns away, one by one.    

Government needs to be 'controlled' by the people, and not vice versa.  But one cannot control government with private guns, nor by keeping it ignorant about the people who it is supposed to be serving.  The fight has to be continually fought in the political arena, not on the street nor the countryside.

This is a very tricky issue. I'm all for security. But I feel that such measures will eventually be used against patriots.

The objections people make to sophisticated ID cards remind me of the objections people make to cameras at Automatic Teller Machines.  The cameras are an invasion of privacy, people argue.  But they are a meaningful invasion only of the privacy of people who are planning to mug someone or steal someone's ATM card and use it to withdraw cash.  If you want to benefit from the convenience of an ATM machine, you must be willing to have your photo taken.  The world does not owe you a photo-free existence in public.  Likewise, if you want to benefit from nearly unencumbered international travel, you may have to have your fingerprints taken.  The world does not owe you completely unfettered travel.

They Should Have Required Fingerprints Years Ago...on passports and/or Visas.

I hope the U.S. will be doing the same thing. As far as I am concerned, the U.S. should require of all foreign visitors to provide the U.S. with a sample of their DNA, for a DNA database, particularly of Muslims. If a foreigner does not want to submit a sample, then that is ok. They can just stay home.

But then again there would be no need to require it of foreigners from Islamic nations and/or Muslims in general. Why? Because I would NOT allow Muslims into this country in the first place and the ones we have here I want deported taking their vile barbaric religious and fascist political ideology with them, along with their false warmongering pedophile prophet Mohammad.

Hey I understand the EU wants more Muslim immigrants. Well please take ours. We don't want this cancer here.

Amen marcfrans! The Constitution is indeed not a suicide pact.

...with biometric ID's? 

Effective government requires, among other things, secure or tamper-free passports.   And the maintenance of democratic government requires strict adherance to democratic 'constitutional' principles.  It has nothing to do with the quality of information on ID's. 

It is of, course, normal for elected politicians (and for people in general) to try to deflect blame for unpleasant realities to others.  It is certainly not unusual.

I realise that the article is about Britain, which strictly speaking has no Constitution.  So let's rephrase and say that the maintenance of democratic  governance in Britain requires adherence to the practice of the democratic 'tradition'.  Tamper-free passports are neither pro nor contra that tradition.   Sensible Europeans and Americans would say to extreme libertarians that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

A society that does not know its members cannot possibly govern itself effectively, which in itself can help to undermine an existing democracy (admittedly a rare phenomenon).