Dining Over the Gap: An Meeting Between Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
First Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Occupation Ex- civil servant, now a student focusing on community health
Voting record Voted Green recently (and a affiliate of the party); previously Labour Party. Identifies as âleft, and globalist rather than nationalistâ
Amuse bouche A sketch of a teacup he created as a kid was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, he has resided in the United Kingdom for half a decade, and supported Conservative. Identifies as âslightly right of centreâ
Interesting fact He self-learned to understand Urdu. âI have no use for it, I was just fascinatedâ
Initial impressions
Akshat Over the last two decades, Iâve lived and worked in Qatar, South Korea, the United States. The issues we discussed are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life more or less follows the same curve wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but he was quite measured â we engaged in a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, he opted for mojitos.
Peter We shared appetizers â seafood rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for being a snowflake? Weâre both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We connected through our affection for the capital.
The big beef
Akshat I look at migration similar to adding salt to a dish. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Add too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat used an analogy regarding seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the state was selecting some preferred demographic of the country.
The first participant There are, sadly, individuals fleeing persecution, but many migrants coming to the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the welfare system. No one compels you to move to a new country for opportunity, so you should only go if you can take care of your own needs and your relatives.
The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. In my view it is the case that you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. Itâs been a hostile environment for some time, application costs are quite expensive, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, itâs 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
The first participant Peter questions unregulated markets. So am I, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged.
The second participant We each have global outlooks. And we agreed that certain elements of the community â government, the media â thrive off stoking division. We did find common ground in fundamentals and ethics.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that because the UK benefitted from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess the past with contemporary ethics; times are different, current society were not responsible of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the Britain had to compensate India, it would be a significant sum of money. Is Britain able to manage that? Certainly not.
The second participant In the past, I donât think there was much reckoning with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the United Kingdom, people werenât aware of the Great Famine and the role that colonialism played in it. I hold that decolonization isnât just about signing a cheque, it ought to involve looking at past errors and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It wonât change the my perspective, but I understand Peterâs concerns. I talk to individuals regularly whose views are opposite to mine. Itâs about bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that all of us can work towards the improvement of society.
The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. Akshat had dessert and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I didnât persuade him of any point, but we each liked dinner, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in the coming times.
