🔗 Share this article Conversing Across the Divide: An Meeting Among Opposing Perspectives Meeting the Participants One Diner: P., 34, from London Profession Former civil servant, now a learner focusing on community health Political history Voted Green last time (and a affiliate of the political group); previously Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist rather than patriotic” Interesting fact A drawing of a teacup he did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery Second Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow Profession Risk manager in the infrastructure industry Voting record Hailing from India, Akshat has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “slightly moderate right” Amuse bouche He self-learned to understand Urdu. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing” Initial impressions The first participant During the past 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, East Asia, the US. The issues Peter and I discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also universal, because people's lives more or less evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we had a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos. The second participant We shared starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I think he was too. Was he going to attack me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and Spain. We connected through our love of the capital. The big beef Akshat I view migration like sprinkling salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned. The second participant Akshat had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be a funny place to be if the state was choosing some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation. Akshat There are, unfortunately, people escaping oppression, but many migrants coming to the UK are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can weigh on the welfare system. Nobody forces you to go to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you can take care of your own needs and your relatives. Peter We became confused with certain details. I don’t think it is the case that you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. Nothing is automatic. It’s been a hostile environment for some time, visa fees are really high, there is an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is limited. There is no special treatment for anybody. 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 believe we must maintain a degree of compassion. Sharing plate The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but simultaneously, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged. Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that some parts of the community – politics, the media – benefit from creating conflict. We discovered common ground in fundamentals and ethics. Dessert and debate The first participant Peter is of the opinion that because the United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay compensation to affected nations. I simply think: you cannot judge the past with present day morality; eras vary, modern people had no control of events decades or a century ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is Britain able to manage that? No. Peter Until recently, I believe there was much reckoning with the colonial past. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. My view is decolonisation is not merely about issuing payments, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now. Takeaways The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to individuals regularly with opinions are contrary to my own. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that everyone can strive for the improvement of society. The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we both enjoyed the meal, so we could hopefully be more open to having conversations with others in future.