Only what is proposed is a digital ID system, therefore no hard copy would be available.
And with no hard copy if/when the system goes down what then?
And what would happen if for example a fascist government were elected that had promised to push things though by secondary legislation, i.e. with no parliamentary scrutiny?
If for example they wished to carry out mass roundups and deportations they could simply cancel ID for those they wished to persecute.
An example where it could already be achieved is for the millions who have 'settled status' in the UK following brexit.
These are purely digital records, and if someone who has 'settled status' wants to re-enter the UK after say a holiday, they have to get a digitally generated code.
It would be quite easy for a government to simply deny these codes.
Of course it wouldn't just be 'foreigners' at risk, it is the whole population that could suffer depending on what 'problem' any future government would like to 'solve'.
Blair is one of those behind this, and he envisages a worldwide digital ID system.
Whilst saying it shouldn't be based on the chinese model, it would be almost inevitable that it would edge that way if governments across the world got more right wing.
Which is precisely why I said we need to feel confident about
a) personal information that we provide,
b) personal information obtained and held by others and
c) the use to which any government (or other data holder) is allowed to make use of such information.
Without and until we have that confidence we should be wary of attempts to force through legislation that requires us to provide information, and who is allowed to hold such information, and for what purposes.
And we won't all arrive at that 'full confidence' point at the same time. That means efforts should be targeted at gaining the confidence rather than imposing systems that haven't addressed the issues or reasons for the lack of confidence.
In systems development and introduction there are several options for the new system delivery:
1) a date and time when everyone changes to the new system, no ifs or buts. The old system becomes defunct and only the new system is available.
2) the two systems run in parallel and the user chooses which system to use. The intention is to make the new system better/easier/offering more benefits etc that it becomes the preferred option. The old system dies a slow but sure death.
3) a phased rollout (targeting some users, a geographical region, a service delivery, etc,) allows the system development and the users to learn from, and improve the ease of use and increase the benefits of the new system so that it becomes the preferred option. This phased approach can be combined and implemented in either of the options 1 and 2 above.
A trial group was attempted and for whatever reason, a full rollout was terminated.
Several repeated failed rollouts become a comedy, an expensive waste of resources, and build resistance.