Dining Over the Gap: A Encounter Among Different Viewpoints
Meeting the Participants
One Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Profession Former government employee, currently a learner studying community health
Political history Supported Green last time (also a affiliate of the political group); formerly Labour Party. Identifies as “progressive, and globalist instead of nationalist”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a teacup Peter did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery
Second Participant: A., 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk manager in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported Conservative. Identifies as “slightly moderate right”
Amuse bouche He taught himself to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
Akshat Over the last two decades, I’ve lived and worked in Qatar, East Asia, the United States. The issues we talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life largely evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated 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.
Peter We shared appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think he was too. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We each have immigrant backgrounds. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and Spain. We connected through our love of London.
The big beef
The first participant I view immigration like adding salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter He had a metaphor about seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the government was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.
The first participant There are, sadly, people escaping oppression, but a lot of migrants coming to the UK are economic migrants who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to go to a new country for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support yourself and your relatives.
The second participant We got lost with certain details. In my view it is the case that you come over and are employed and then after five years you obtain indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are quite expensive, you pay an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anyone. And concerning the new policies, under which family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I think we have to have a certain level 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 each have global outlooks. And we concurred that certain elements of the community – government, the media – benefit from creating conflict. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and values.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom profited from colonial times, it should pay compensation to those countries. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history with present day morality; times are different, modern people had no control of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the Britain had to compensate India, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is Britain able to do that? No.
Peter Until recently, I don’t think there was much reckoning with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it ought to involve looking at past errors and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I converse with people regularly with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that everyone can work towards the betterment of society.
The second participant We remained for 150 minutes. Akshat had dessert 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 future.
