Piddington Village Votes for Independence Over Asylum Centre Plans

A small village in England has decided to leave the United Kingdom. This decision comes in response to the government’s proposal to establish a large asylum center on the outskirts of the settlement, which residents believe endangers local women and girls.

Piddington, located in Oxfordshire, conducted a local referendum, resulting in a significant majority choosing to become an independent “Principality.” According to the results announced at the village hall, of the 312 votes cast—a turnout of 92 percent—about 285 residents supported the move to secede from the UK, while just 26 voted against it.

Tim McNally, chair of the Piddington parish council, remarked, “It sends a message to the Government that change is necessary. You need to understand our mindset. We were once just Piddington; now we are the principality of Piddington, and we plan to put up a sign to announce this.”

Interestingly, villagers have previously reached out to former U.S. President Donald Trump for help, even suggesting they might rename their village “Trumpington” if it could become the 51st state of the U.S. The idea of holding a referendum surfaced on July 4th, and the vote took place on September 15th, coinciding with the Battle of Britain memorial day.

Now, the village is contemplating creating its own ID cards and electing officials for governance as a principality.

While this symbolic vote—self-declared independence referenda carry no legal weight in the UK—arose largely due to the government’s plans to turn a former British Army garrison near Piddington, known as Ordnance Depot Bicester, into a camp for new arrivals claiming to be refugees. Officially meant to accommodate 1,256 men, some recent government documents indicated that the capacity could reach as high as 3,500—ten times the village’s population.

So far, most migrants have been distributed across the country in what are termed migrant hotels. However, this has led to rising public concern and incidents of migrant-related crime. The current Labour government has proposed moving this issue away from the open borders narrative, instead attributing the problem to the hotels themselves. Their approach involves redistributing arrivals to different regions, aiming to appease public sentiment.

In response to the Piddington vote, the government acknowledged residents’ concerns but maintained its stance of placing migrants in economically disadvantaged areas where affordable housing is available. They stressed the need for wealthier areas to take a fair share of the responsibility.

Minister Lisa Nandy commented, “It’s not right that the burden of asylum accommodation falls solely on poorer communities.”

The government’s plan to relocate migrants to more affluent areas is a significant challenge for local areas that have previously supported open-borders policies without facing many of the repercussions. For context, Piddington, despite resisting the asylum center, has been politically influenced by the Liberal Democrats, known for their welcoming stance on refugees.

Former Conservative minister Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park noted in a recent statement that the local leadership, including councillors and MPs, are from the Liberal Democrats. He highlighted that this party had previously voted for the area to be recognized as a “Council of Sanctuary,” called for the repeal of strict migration laws, and expressed that asylum seekers should be treated as neighbors. He pointedly asked, “What did local voters expect would happen?”