Conversing Across the Divide: An Encounter Between Different Viewpoints
Introducing the Participants
First Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Occupation Ex- civil servant, now a student focusing on public health
Political history Voted Green recently (also a member of the political group); formerly Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist rather than nationalist”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a tea cup Peter created as a kid was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Participant: A., 43, Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from India, Akshat has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
Initial impressions
The first participant During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, South Korea, the United States. The issues we talked about are UK-centric, but they are also global, because human life more or less evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We split appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, 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 US and the Iberian Peninsula. We bonded over our love of the capital.
Key disagreements
The first participant I look at immigration similar to sprinkling salt to a meal. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat used an analogy about seasoning. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the nation.
Akshat There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but many migrants coming to the UK are economic migrants who may not add significant value and can weigh on the benefit system. No one compels you to move to a new country for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support your own needs and your relatives.
Peter We became confused with certain details. In my view it is the case that you arrive and are employed and then following a half-decade you get indefinite leave to remain. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, visa fees are really high, there is an healthcare levy, access to benefits is restricted. There is no special treatment for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we desire your labor, but we don’t want you. I believe we must maintain a degree of compassion.
Common ground
The first participant Peter questions unregulated markets. I am, too, but at the same time, wealth creation helps communities and ought to be promoted.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of society – politics, the press – thrive off stoking division. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and values.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter is of the opinion that because the United Kingdom benefitted from colonial times, it ought to provide compensation to affected nations. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history with contemporary ethics; times are different, modern people were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the UK was obliged to repay the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of money. Is Britain able to manage that? Certainly not.
Peter In the past, I believe there was much reckoning with colonial history. As an instance, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonization isn’t just about signing a cheque, it ought to involve looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to people every day with opinions are opposite to mine. The goal is uniting people to the same page, in order that all of us can strive for the improvement of society.
The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. Akshat had dessert and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of anything, but we each liked dinner, so we could hopefully be more receptive to engaging in dialogues with others in future.
