It has been a week since British citizens voted 52 % to 48 % in favour of leaving the European Union. But, make no mistake, this was never a referendum about Europe, this was a revolt by the working-class against a political establishment, which God knows for how long, has been dominated by an elite club of wealthy chaps who start off as researchers or special advisers, and ultimately as ministers.

They are known as the Oxbridge elite because they all graduated from either Oxford or Cambridge.

When you look closely, and I did during my 14 months at Westminster as a postgraduate intern, one thing strikes you: the vast majority of policymakers are disconnected from the everyday experience of an ordinary Brit.

They all own country and town homes, most send their children to private schools such as Eton College where tuition fees start from £12,354 per term, and yes, few have ever experienced unemployment or having to choose between heating your home and feeding your family.

Theirs is a different life.

Of course, there is no problem with being privileged and able to afford either Oxford or Cambridge – after all, these are two of the top education institutions in the world.

But, when the system is designed to only allow just 7 per cent of the UK population to go to private schools, and yet their graduates take 44 per cent of places at Oxford, and 38 per cent at Cambridge, questions need to be asked.

How can the less privileged majority relate to someone who is alien to their experiences?

Take, for instance, the current UK cabinet ministers; from Prime Minister David Cameron (soon to be former), to Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Education, Health, and Justice secretaries - the invisible link between them soon becomes visible; Oxford or Cambridge.

Nineteen British Prime Ministers have also been educated in private schools. And, the inequality in opportunities doesn’t end there; Sutton Trust indicates that 82% of barristers in the UK also went to Oxford or Cambridge, as did 78% of judges, 53% of top solicitors, and 45% of leading journalists.

To add insult to injury, the last five years have been especially tough for the working-class. Following the 2008 financial crisis that was, I must add, largely caused by the one percent hedge-fund bankers, the Conservative government embarked on measures to reduce public expenditure. Consequently, welfare cuts were made, healthcare and education services cut, and there were no reinvestments in social housing.

Public frustration was a matter of time: for instance, on 10 November 2010, over 50,000 students protested against increases in university tuition fees (from £3,290 to £9,000). On 26 March 2011,500,000 protesters demonstrated against public expenditure cuts.

Yet again, the establishment failed to relate.

Significantly, however, as the political establishment refused to listen, right-wing nationalists lay in waiting – and they pounced. The UK Independent Party started to draw up its manifesto to reflect the frustrations of the people, and gradually, traditional Labour and Conservative voters turned to UKIP.

At the 2015 general election, for instance, UKIP successfully secured over 3.8 million votes, dwarfing previous results 919,546 votes in 2010 and 105,722 votes in 1997.

What was UKIP’s central policy? It was anti-immigration, and by default anti-EU due to the bloc’s principle policy of free movement of people. But, UKIP’s manifesto continued to appeal to a lot of voters. After all, they claimed that if migrants were stopped, all the problems in the UK would varnish.

At the referendum, right-wing nationalists lay in waiting…

Let’s take it back a bit; when the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973 alongside Denmark and Ireland, the bloc was at the time viewed as an exclusive club of wealthy European nations.

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands were the only members.

However, gradually the union expanded. In 1981, Greece joined, in 1986 Portugal and Spain became members too. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden also joined. At this stage, although calls to limit EU membership were voiced, they were equally ignored.

But when the union welcomed three former Soviet Union countries alongside five East European nations as well as Cyprus and Malta in 2004, the same voices re-emerged. Anti-immigration political parties across Europe were determined to amplify their message claiming that migrants from new members would flock to richer members.

According to the Office for National Statistics’ Labour Force Survey, in 2015, there were 3.3 million EU citizens in the UK. But then again, there are around 1.2 million British born people living in other EU countries.

But the stage was already set. On June 23, 2016, when voters went to the ballot box, many had been persuaded that a vote to leave the EU would bring an end to unemployment, shortages in social housing, and put an end to public expenditure cuts.

You only have to look at the results from regions facing these problems to understand how the message hit home.

To sum up, in its current form of a one-size-fits-all framework, the EU isn’t working for everyone – that, we know, and it needs to change to reflect the needs of its members. However, leaving a bloc of such importance politically, economically, and socially can only be a mistake. It is impossible to positively affect that which you are not a part of.

On another hand, what the UK referendum illustrates is that we are increasingly becoming vulnerable to xenophobic propaganda, a lot of which illustrates abject failure to comprehend the mechanics of globalisation and its aspects of free movement of goods, services, and people.

But, of course, we can resist; we can resist propaganda which encourages fear over hope, preaches raising walls instead of building bridges, and views migrants as liability rather than asset.

We should fight xenophobic antics everywhere and ensure that right-wing groups don’t hijack our way of life.

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk