Conversing Across the Gap: A Meeting Among Opposing Viewpoints
Introducing the Individuals
One Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Occupation Former government employee, now a learner studying community health
Political history Supported the Green Party recently (and a member of the party); previously Labour. Identifies as “progressive, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a teacup Peter created as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Participant: A., 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from India, he has lived in the UK for half a decade, and voted the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right”
Amuse bouche He self-learned to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
Akshat Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the United States. The issues Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life 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, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We shared starters – fishy spring rolls, dumplings, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. My childhood was in Dublin; I have resided in the US and the Iberian Peninsula. We bonded over our affection for London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view immigration like sprinkling salt to a meal. With a small amount, the dish is delicious. Add too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant He used an analogy regarding salt. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was selecting some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, sadly, people escaping oppression, but a lot of people coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who may not add significant value and can burden the welfare system. No one compels you to go to a new country for opportunity, so you should only go 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 is the case that you arrive and are employed and then after five years you get 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, eligibility for support is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the new policies, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: we desire your labor, but we reject you as a person. I believe we must maintain a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, economic growth helps communities and should be encouraged.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of society – government, the media – benefit from stoking division. We discovered common ground in basic principles and values.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom benefitted from colonial times, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, 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 huge amount of funds. Is the UK in a position to do that? Certainly not.
The second participant Until recently, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. As an instance, when I first moved to the UK, people had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about signing a cheque, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I converse with people every day with opinions are opposite to mine. The goal is bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that all of us can strive for the betterment of society.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. Akshat had dessert and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of anything, but we both enjoyed the meal, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in future.
