Oxford village holds symbolic vote over asylum seeker plan

Residents of Piddington, a village in England’s Oxfordshire county, have held a symbolic referendum on “seceding” from the United Kingdom in protest against the government’s plan to accommodate asylum seekers nearby.

The legally non-binding vote, held in the village of about 350 people, asked residents whether they supported Piddington “seceding from the United Kingdom and choosing a path of self-determination.” The referendum cannot lead to the village leaving the country.

Organizers said the unusual move was intended to draw attention to the government’s plan to accommodate 1,256 adult male asylum seekers at part of the former Ministry of Defence site known as MoD Bicester.

Residents say accommodating so many people near the small community could put pressure on local infrastructure and create security concerns. More than 130 women from Piddington wrote to women members of Parliament in Westminster, expressing concern about the plan and its potential impact on the community.

The Home Office said the safety of asylum seekers, staff and local residents would be a priority if the “Bicester” project goes ahead.

Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds told ITV he understood the concerns. He said former military sites offered an alternative to continuing to use hotels: “There isn’t some imaginary place where these people can go.”

Reynolds said accommodating asylum seekers was neither pleasant nor easy. The Labour government has promised to end the use of asylum hotels, which has fueled political debate and protests in various parts of Britain.

According to government figures, around 16,000 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels at the end of June 2026. The proposed “Bicester” center is part of a plan to move asylum seekers to alternative sites, including former military facilities.

The results of the symbolic referendum are expected to be announced on Wednesday.

Non-binding local votes of this kind are generally used to express public sentiment rather than to alter a community’s constitutional status. Any change to the United Kingdom’s territorial arrangements would require formal legal and political procedures.