Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Between Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
First Diner: Peter, 34, London
Occupation Ex- government employee, currently a learner studying public health
Political history Voted the Green Party recently (and a member of the party); formerly Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and internationalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A drawing of a teacup he created as a kid was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk manager in the construction sector
Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported Conservative. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right”
Amuse bouche Akshat taught himself to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I was just fascinated”
For starters
The first participant Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, South Korea, the US. The topics we discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also universal, because human life largely evolve similarly wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, he opted for mojitos.
Peter We shared appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our affection for London.
The big beef
Akshat I look at immigration like adding salt to a meal. With a small amount, the food is delicious. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
The second participant Akshat used an analogy about salt. It would be odd to be if the government was choosing some preferred demographic of the nation.
Akshat There are, sadly, people fleeing persecution, but a lot of people coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the welfare system. No one compels you to go to a new country for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support yourself and your relatives.
The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you arrive and are employed and then after five years you get permanent citizenship. Nothing is automatic. It’s been a hostile environment for some time, visa fees are quite expensive, there is an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I think we have to have a certain level of compassion.
Common ground
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of the community – government, the media – thrive off stoking division. We discovered common ground in basic principles and values.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that since the United Kingdom profited from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. My view is simply: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; times are different, modern people were not responsible of events 50 or 100 years ago. Let’s say the Britain had to compensate India, it would be a significant sum of money. Is the UK in a position to manage that? Certainly not.
The second participant Until recently, I believe there was much reckoning with the colonial past. For example, upon my arrival to the UK, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that imperial rule played in it. I hold that decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.
Final thoughts
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I talk to people every day with opinions are opposite to mine. The goal is bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that everyone can strive for the betterment of society.
The second participant We were there for two and a half hours. Akshat had dessert and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we might become more open to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.