Dining Over the Divide: An Encounter Among Opposing Perspectives
Meeting the Individuals
One Participant: Peter, 34, from London
Profession Ex- civil servant, now a student focusing on public health
Voting record Supported Green recently (and a member of the party); formerly Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a tea cup he created as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Diner: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector
Political history Hailing from India, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported Conservative. Describes himself as “somewhat right of centre”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to read and write the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
For starters
Akshat Over the last 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, East Asia, the US. The topics we discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life largely follows the same curve wherever it is. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we had a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We shared starters – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I think Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and the Iberian Peninsula. We connected through our love of the capital.
Key disagreements
Akshat I look at immigration like sprinkling salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant Akshat had a metaphor regarding salt. It would be odd to exist if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, sadly, people escaping oppression, but many migrants 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 move to a different nation for opportunity, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your family.
The second participant We got lost with certain details. In my view it is the case that you come over and work and then following a half-decade you obtain indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are really high, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. 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 think we must maintain a degree of compassion.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of society – government, the media – benefit from creating conflict. We discovered common ground in fundamentals and ethics.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter is of the opinion that because the UK profited from colonial times, it ought to provide reparations to affected nations. I simply think: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; times are different, current society were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the UK was obliged to repay 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 don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. For example, upon my arrival to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the part that imperial rule played in it. My view is decolonisation is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It may not alter the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to individuals every day with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about uniting people to the same page, so that everyone can work towards the betterment of society.
The second participant We were there for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we each liked dinner, so we could hopefully be more receptive to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.
