Reform UK Walkout Over Havering Independence Motion – London 2026

Key Points

• Reform UK’s two London Assembly members, Keith Prince and Alex Wilson, walked out of a City Hall plenary session on Thursday afternoon amid a dispute over a Liberal Democrat motion concerning Havering’s potential independence from London.
• The walkout followed a ruling by Assembly chair Andrew Boff (Conservative) to admit the Lib Dem motion, which Reform UK members said falsely claimed Cllr Keith Prince had rejected the principle of a referendum on Havering leaving the capital.
• Cllr Prince, leader of Havering Council and a Reform UK member, insisted he had never ruled out such a referendum and had repeatedly said he was open to it if there was sufficient public demand.
• In a statement, Cllr Prince described the motion as a “shameless, unveiled attempt to sow disagreement” between him and his party colleagues, adding that Reform UK would not stand for “political gameplaying”.
• The incident descended into chaos at City Hall, with Reform UK members quitting the session in protest after arguing the motion was “flagrantly misleading” and should not have been admitted by the chair.
• The row highlights tensions within the London Assembly over local autonomy, referendum processes, and the political positioning of Reform UK in outer London boroughs such as Havering.

Havering (East London Times) July 6, 2026 –Reform UK’s two representatives on the London Assembly, Keith Prince and Alex Wilson, staged a walkout from a plenary session at City Hall on Thursday after a dispute erupted over a Liberal Democrat motion relating to Havering’s potential separation from Greater London.

The incident, which multiple outlets described as descending into chaos, centred on whether the motion accurately reflected Cllr Keith Prince’s position on holding a referendum on Havering’s independence from the capital.

As reported by journalists covering the Assembly, the row began when the chair, Conservative Andrew Boff, allowed the Lib Dem motion to proceed despite objections from Reform UK members.

Prince and Wilson argued that the wording of the motion falsely suggested that Cllr Prince, who also serves as leader of Havering Council, had ruled out the principle of a referendum on Havering leaving London. Reform UK members contended this mischaracterised his public stance and amounted to political manoeuvring.

Following Boff’s decision to admit the motion, Prince and Wilson left the chamber in protest, with Prince later issuing a statement condemning the move.

“This motion is a shameless, unveiled attempt to sow disagreement between myself and my party colleagues where it doesn’t exist,”

he said. He added:

“By walking out of the Assembly today, we have made it abundantly clear that Reform UK will not stand for political gameplaying.”

Who are the key figures in the London Assembly walkout?

The central figures in the incident are Reform UK’s Keith Prince and Alex Wilson, the party’s two members on the 25-seat London Assembly, and Andrew Boff, the Conservative Assembly member who chairs plenary sessions.

Cllr Keith Prince, who leads Havering Council, has been a prominent voice for greater local autonomy in outer London and has previously spoken about the possibility of a referendum on Havering’s status within the capital if public demand warranted it.

According to coverage of the session, Prince told colleagues he had

“asserted many times that he is open to the possibility”

of a referendum should there be enough public support, contradicting the implication in the Lib Dem motion that he had rejected the principle outright. In his statement, Prince described the motion as

“flagrantly misleading” and said it

“should have never been admitted by the chair”.

Andrew Boff, as chair, is responsible for ruling on the admissibility of motions and maintaining order during plenary debates.

His decision to allow the Lib Dem motion to proceed prompted the Reform UK walkout, with Prince and Wilson quitting the session in protest.

The Liberal Democrat group behind the motion has not been named in initial reports, but the content focused on the principle of a referendum and Prince’s alleged rejection of it.

Why did Reform UK members walk out of the London Assembly?

Reform UK members walked out because they believed the Liberal Democrat motion misrepresented Cllr Keith Prince’s position on a Havering independence referendum and was being used to create political division. In Prince’s words, the motion was a

“shameless, unveiled attempt to sow disagreement between myself and my party colleagues where it doesn’t exist”.

He argued that he had consistently said he was open to a referendum if there was sufficient public demand, and that the motion’s suggestion he had rejected the principle was false.

Prince and Wilson framed their walkout as a stand against what they called “political gameplaying”.

“By walking out of the Assembly today, we have made it abundantly clear that Reform UK will not stand for political gameplaying,”

Prince said. He also criticised Boff’s ruling, saying the

“flagrantly misleading motion should have never been admitted by the chair”.

The walkout left the plenary session in disarray, with multiple outlets describing the scene as chaotic as Reform UK members exited the chamber.

The incident underscores the sensitivity around questions of local autonomy, referendum processes, and the political positioning of Reform UK in outer London boroughs such as Havering.

How have different media outlets reported the London Assembly walkout?

Early coverage of the incident has focused on the walkout itself, the content of the Lib Dem motion, and Prince’s response. Reports highlight that the row centred on whether the motion accurately reflected Prince’s position on a referendum, with Reform UK members insisting it did not.

Outlets have quoted Prince’s statement in full, including his description of the motion as a “shameless, unveiled attempt to sow disagreement” and his assertion that Reform UK would not tolerate “political gameplaying”.

Coverage also notes the role of Andrew Boff as chair and his decision to admit the motion despite Reform UK objections.

While initial reports do not name the Lib Dem authors of the motion, they emphasise the political tension it provoked and the subsequent chaos in the chamber.

The incident has been framed as part of a broader debate over local autonomy and the future of outer London boroughs within the capital, with Havering at the centre of discussions about potential separation.

What statements have been made by Keith Prince and Reform UK?

Cllr Keith Prince issued a detailed statement following the walkout, reiterating his position on a Havering independence referendum and condemning the Lib Dem motion. He said:

“This motion is a shameless, unveiled attempt to sow disagreement between myself and my party colleagues where it doesn’t exist.”

He added:

“By walking out of the Assembly today, we have made it abundantly clear that Reform UK will not stand for political gameplaying.”

Prince also addressed the substance of the dispute, stating:

“This flagrantly misleading motion should have never been admitted by the chair.”

He insisted he had “never ruled out holding such a referendum” and had

“asserted many times that he is open to the possibility of it should there be enough public demand”.

These comments were echoed in media coverage, which presented them as central to Reform UK’s justification for the walkout.

No further statements from Alex Wilson or the wider Reform UK group have been reported in initial coverage, though the party’s actions in quitting the session were presented as a coordinated protest against the motion and the chair’s ruling.

What is the background to the Havering independence movement?

The idea of Havering seeking independence from London has circulated for several years, driven by perceptions that the borough is culturally and politically distinct from inner London and that its residents are poorly represented by City Hall.

Havering, located in east London, has long been a Conservative stronghold and has seen growing support for Reform UK in recent elections, reflecting broader trends in outer London and the Home Counties.

Proponents of independence argue that Havering would benefit from greater control over local services, planning, and taxation, free from what they see as a London-wide agenda focused on inner boroughs.

Critics, however, warn that separation could lead to loss of funding, complications over transport and policing, and legal hurdles given that borough boundaries are set by central government.

The question of how a referendum would be triggered, funded, and recognised remains unresolved, with no clear mechanism under current law for a borough to secede from Greater London.

Cllr Prince’s openness to a referendum, conditional on public demand, has kept the issue alive in local political discourse, even as the practicalities remain uncertain. The London Assembly row reflects the wider tension between local autonomy campaigners and those who see Havering’s future as integral to the capital.

What could this development mean for Havering residents and London politics?

The walkout and the underlying dispute over a Havering independence referendum are likely to sharpen political debate in the borough and across the London Assembly. For Havering residents, the incident may revive discussions about local identity, representation, and the perceived gap between outer borough priorities and City Hall’s agenda.

If Reform UK continues to champion the independence question, it could become a defining issue in future local and Assembly elections, particularly if public opinion polls show significant support for a referendum.

For London-wide politics, the row highlights the challenges of managing a diverse assembly with members from parties that have fundamentally different visions for the capital’s governance.

Repeated confrontations over local autonomy could complicate consensus-building on issues such as transport, housing, and policing, especially if outer borough representatives feel their concerns are marginalised.

Conversely, if the independence debate leads to concrete proposals for devolution or greater local control, it could reshape the relationship between individual boroughs and City Hall, with implications for how London is governed in the longer term.