Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Among Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
One Participant: Peter, 34, London
Profession Ex- civil servant, now a student focusing on public health
Political history Supported Green last time (and a affiliate of the political group); formerly Labour. Identifies as “left, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup he did as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Diner: A., 43, Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the infrastructure industry
Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the UK for five years, and supported Conservative. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to read and write Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I was just fascinated”
For starters
Akshat During the past 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, South Korea, the United States. The issues Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also global, because people's lives more or less evolve similarly wherever it is. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we had a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
Peter We split appetizers – seafood rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think he was too. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our affection for London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view migration like adding salt to a dish. With a small amount, the dish tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant He had a metaphor regarding salt. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.
The first participant There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but a lot of migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are economic migrants who may not add significant value and can weigh on the benefit system. Nobody forces you to move to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you can take care of your own needs and your family.
Peter We got lost with certain details. I don’t think it is the case that you come over and are employed and then after five years you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is limited. There is no special treatment for anyone. And regarding the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we have to have a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and should be encouraged.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that certain elements of the community – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and ethics.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that since the United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it ought to provide reparations to affected nations. My view is simply: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, modern people had no control of events decades or a century ago. Suppose the Britain was obliged to repay the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of money. Is the UK in a position to manage that? No.
The second participant Until recently, I don’t think there was much reckoning with colonial history. As an instance, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about examining what went wrong and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to people every day whose views are opposite to my own. The goal is uniting people to the common understanding, in order that everyone can work towards the betterment of society.
Peter We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert 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 the coming times.
