Dining Over the Gap: A Meeting Between Different Viewpoints

Meeting the Individuals

First Participant: P., 34, from London

Profession Ex- government employee, now a learner focusing on public health

Voting record Voted the Green Party recently (also a affiliate of the political group); previously Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist rather than nationalist”

Interesting fact A sketch of a teacup Peter did as a kid was once hung in the Irish National Gallery

Other Diner: Akshat, 43, Harrow

Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector

Political history Hailing from India, he has lived in the United Kingdom for half a decade, and supported the Conservative Party. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre”

Interesting fact He self-learned to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”

For starters

The first participant During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The topics we talked about are UK-centric, but they are also global, because human life more or less follows the same curve across the world. I anticipated someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.

Peter We split appetizers – 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 each have immigrant backgrounds. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We connected through our love of the capital.

Key disagreements

Akshat I look at immigration similar to adding salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the dish tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned.

The second participant Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be odd to be if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the nation.

Akshat There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but many migrants coming to the UK are economic migrants who do not necessarily contribute much and can weigh on the welfare system. No one compels you to move to a new country for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you can take care of your own needs and your relatives.

The second participant We got lost with some of the facts. I don’t think it is the case that you arrive and work and then following a half-decade you get permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, application costs are really high, you pay an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anybody. And concerning the new policies, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I believe we must maintain a degree of compassion.

Sharing plate

Akshat Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and ought to be promoted.

The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of society – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We did find common ground in basic principles and ethics.

Dessert and debate

The first participant Peter is of the opinion that since the UK benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay reparations to affected nations. My view is simply: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; times are different, modern people had no control of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is Britain able to do that? No.

The second participant In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the United Kingdom, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that imperial rule played in it. I hold that decolonisation is not merely about issuing payments, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.

Final thoughts

The first participant It won’t change the my perspective, but I appreciate his worries. I talk to people regularly whose views are contrary to mine. The goal is bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that everyone can work towards the improvement of the community.

The second participant We were there for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of anything, but we each liked the meal, so we could hopefully be more open to having conversations with others in the coming times.