Conversing Over the Divide: An Meeting Between Different Viewpoints
Introducing the Participants
One Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Occupation Ex- government employee, currently a learner studying community health
Political history Voted the Green Party recently (also a member of the party); previously Labour Party. Identifies as “left, and internationalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A drawing of a tea cup Peter created as a kid was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the infrastructure industry
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has resided in the UK for five years, and voted Conservative. Identifies as “somewhat moderate right”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to understand the Urdu language. “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 Qatar, East Asia, the United States. The issues we discussed are UK-centric, but they are also global, because people's lives more or less follows the same curve wherever it is. I was expecting a staunch 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.
The second participant We shared appetizers – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I believe Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the US and Spain. We connected through our love of the capital.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view immigration similar to sprinkling salt to a dish. With a small amount, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.
The second participant Akshat used an analogy about salt. It would be a funny place to be if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, individuals fleeing persecution, but many migrants coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who may not contribute much and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to go to a different nation for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support your own needs and your relatives.
The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you come over and work and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, there is an NHS surcharge, access to benefits is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I believe we have to have a degree of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of the community – politics, the media – benefit from creating conflict. We did find common ground in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter is of the opinion that since the United Kingdom benefitted from colonial times, it should pay compensation to affected nations. I simply think: it is unfair to assess the past with present day morality; times are different, modern people were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is the UK in a position to manage that? Certainly not.
The second participant In the past, I believe there was much reckoning with the colonial past. For example, upon my arrival to the United Kingdom, the public weren’t aware of the Great Famine and the role that colonialism played in it. I hold that 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 my perspective, but I appreciate his worries. I converse with people regularly with opinions are contrary to mine. The goal is bringing everyone to the same page, so that everyone 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 any point, but we each liked dinner, so we could hopefully be more receptive to having conversations with others in the coming times.
