Ian Smith would be proud
Britain has faced this sort of constitutional crisis before.
On 11 November 1965, Ian Smith’s government in Rhodesia issued its Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain.
Now, 61 years later, Westminster faces another rebellion.
This time it is coming from Oxfordshire.
And the rebel territory is admittedly rather smaller.
The village of Piddington has overwhelmingly voted to leave the United Kingdom in protest at government plans to accommodate up to 1,256 male asylum seekers at the nearby former MoD Bicester site. Of 312 votes cast in the village referendum, 285 were in favour of leaving the United Kingdom, 26 voted against and one ballot was spoiled.
Nobody seriously believes Piddington is about to establish border posts, issue passports or apply for membership of the United Nations.
But behind the joke is a perfectly serious question.
Why should a small village be expected to absorb the consequences of a national immigration decision?
The Answer Is Already Sitting There
The proposed accommodation is a former military site.
That is important because military establishments were designed to accommodate large numbers of people without requiring the neighbouring village to provide everything they needed.
They had accommodation, catering, administration, recreation, medical support, communications and transport. Most importantly, they operated as organised establishments with rules governing the people living inside them.
So use the site in much the same way.
If someone has arrived in Britain without permission and is waiting for the government to determine whether they have a right to remain, provide decent accommodation while that decision is made.
Feed them properly. Provide healthcare. Provide recreation and communications. Give them access to legal advice and the officials handling their applications.
And process those applications as quickly as possible.
But make the reception centre a **controlled, largely self-contained establishment** rather than expecting the surrounding village to become an extension of it.
A Reception Centre Should Have Rules
This does not have to mean treating everybody inside as a prisoner.
There is an enormous difference between imprisonment and living temporarily within an establishment governed by rules.
I know that from personal experience.
When I joined the Army, I spent my first 12 weeks in training and was not allowed out of barracks. I was a British citizen. I had committed no offence and I certainly wasn’t in prison.
I simply lived in an establishment whose rules included restrictions on when I could leave.
Britain therefore doesn’t need to invent an entirely new administrative concept.
Residents of a large asylum reception centre could remain primarily within the establishment while their claims are processed. Where leaving is permitted, a controlled pass system could record who leaves and who returns.
Medical appointments, immigration interviews, legal appointments and other necessary journeys could be organised.
The important point is simple:
The reception centre should function as a reception centre.
The neighbouring village should not function as part of it.
Protect the People Inside — and the Village Outside. There are two groups of people whose interests matter here. The people awaiting decisions deserve decent accommodation, food, healthcare, safety and a system that reaches decisions promptly.
But the residents of Piddington also deserve to continue living in the village they knew before the government decided to place a national immigration facility beside them. That becomes particularly important when the proposed number of residents at the site is several times the population of the neighbouring village.
Central government makes immigration policy.
Central government decides where these facilities will be located.
Central government decides how many people will be accommodated.
So central government should provide the infrastructure, staffing, transport, security and administration necessary to make its decision work.
It should not simply place a large population beside a small community and expect the community to absorb whatever consequences follow.
Don’t Turn Piddington Into the Reception Centre
That is really what the Piddington argument should be about. Not whether asylum seekers should be treated badly. Not whether villagers should be expected to solve Britain’s immigration problem. And not whether Piddington really intends to overthrow the constitutional authority of His Majesty’s Government.
It is much simpler than that.
If the government wants a large asylum reception centre, then run a proper asylum reception centre.
Make it safe. Make it humane. Make it organised. Make it largely self-contained. Process people quickly and determine who is entitled to remain in Britain and who is not. Above all, don’t make a small Oxfordshire village responsible for accommodating the consequences of a decision made in Westminster. The people inside the centre should be properly looked after.
But Piddington should be allowed to remain Piddington. The Principality Awaits Westminster’s Reply
Ian Smith had Rhodesia.
Westminster now has something considerably closer to home to contend with: the strong and well-organised Country and Principality of Piddington. Fortunately, there is still time for diplomacy. The Foreign Office needn’t panic just yet.
Piddington has not printed its own currency, established an air force or applied to join NATO. Although, given the speed at which things are moving, Westminster might want to get negotiations underway before somebody puts a customs post on the B4011.
