Dining Over the Gap: An Encounter Between Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Individuals
First Participant: P., 34, from London
Profession Ex- civil servant, currently a student studying community health
Political history Voted the Green Party last time (and a member of the political group); formerly Labour. Describes himself as “left, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup he did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery
Other Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Profession Risk manager in the construction sector
Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has lived in the UK for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right”
Interesting fact He self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “It has no practical use for me, I was just fascinated”
Initial impressions
The first participant Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, East Asia, the US. The issues we discussed are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because people's lives more or less evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we had a good, rational discussion. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos.
Peter We split starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We bonded over our love of London.
Key disagreements
Akshat I view immigration like sprinkling salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat used an analogy regarding seasoning. It would be a funny place to exist if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, individuals fleeing persecution, but a lot of migrants coming to the UK are economic migrants who may not add significant value and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to move to a different nation for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support yourself and your family.
Peter We got lost with certain details. I don’t think it is the case that you arrive and work and then after five years you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, there is an healthcare levy, access to benefits is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we must maintain a degree of humanity.
Sharing plate
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but simultaneously, wealth creation helps communities and should be encouraged.
The second participant We each have global outlooks. And we agreed that some parts of the community – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We discovered common ground in fundamentals and ethics.
For afters
The first participant Peter is of the opinion that because the United Kingdom profited from colonial times, it ought to provide compensation to affected nations. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess the past with contemporary ethics; times are different, modern people were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of money. Is Britain able to do that? No.
The second participant In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. As an instance, upon my arrival to the UK, the public weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. My view is decolonisation is not merely about issuing payments, it ought to involve looking at past errors and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate his worries. I talk to individuals regularly whose views are contrary to mine. The goal is bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that everyone can work towards the improvement of society.
The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we both enjoyed dinner, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in future.