Dining Over the Gap: A Meeting Between Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
One Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Profession Ex- civil servant, currently a learner focusing on community health
Voting record Supported Green recently (and a member of the party); formerly Labour Party. Identifies as “progressive, and globalist rather than patriotic”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a teacup Peter did as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Diner: A., 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from India, he has lived in the United Kingdom for half a decade, and voted the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I was just fascinated”
For starters
The first participant During the past two decades, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, South Korea, the US. The issues we discussed are UK-centric, but they are also global, because human life more or less evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting a staunch liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a good, rational discussion. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.
The second participant We shared appetizers – seafood rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I think Akshat was. Would he criticize me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We bonded over our love of London.
Key disagreements
Akshat I look at migration like adding salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the dish is delicious. Add too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant He had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be odd to be if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the country.
Akshat There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but many migrants arriving in the UK are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can weigh on the benefit system. Nobody forces you to move to a different nation for prospects, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support yourself and your family.
The second participant We became confused with certain details. I don’t think it’s like you come over and work and then following a half-decade you get indefinite leave to remain. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, application costs are really high, you pay an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anybody. And concerning the new policies, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we have to have a certain level of compassion.
Common ground
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and should be encouraged.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of society – government, the media – benefit from stoking division. We discovered shared understanding in fundamentals and values.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter believes that since the United Kingdom profited from colonial times, it should pay compensation to affected nations. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess history with contemporary ethics; times are different, current society were not responsible of events 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the UK had to compensate India, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is Britain able to do that? No.
Peter In the past, I believe adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the UK, people weren’t aware of the Great Famine and the part that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
Akshat It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I converse with people every day with opinions are contrary to my own. It’s about uniting people to the common understanding, in order that everyone can strive for the betterment of society.
The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we each liked dinner, so we might become more receptive to engaging in dialogues with others in future.
