Conversing Across the Divide: An Meeting Among Opposing Viewpoints
Meeting the Participants
First Participant: Peter, 34, London
Occupation Former government employee, now a learner studying public health
Voting record Supported the Green Party recently (also a affiliate of the party); formerly Labour. Identifies as “left, and internationalist rather than nationalist”
Amuse bouche A drawing of a teacup he created as a kid was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Occupation Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the UK for half a decade, and supported Conservative. Identifies as “slightly moderate right”
Amuse bouche Akshat self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “It has no practical use for me, I simply found it intriguing”
For starters
The first participant Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The topics Peter and I discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life largely evolve similarly wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
Peter We split starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. 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 United States and Spain. We connected through our love of the capital.
The big beef
The first participant I view migration like adding salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the dish is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant He used an analogy about salt. It would be odd to exist if the state was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the country.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, people fleeing persecution, but a lot of people coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who may not add significant value and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to go to a different nation for prospects, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support your own needs and your family.
The second participant We got lost with some of the facts. In my view it’s like you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you get indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, application costs are quite expensive, there is an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the recent changes, whereby 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 certain level of compassion.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and ought to be promoted.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that some parts of society – politics, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We discovered common ground in fundamentals and ethics.
For afters
The first participant Peter believes that because the UK benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay reparations to affected nations. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess history with present day morality; times are different, modern people were not responsible of events decades or a century ago. Let’s say the UK was obliged to repay the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is the UK in a position to do that? No.
Peter In the past, I believe adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. As an instance, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the role that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and our current responsibilities.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the my perspective, but I understand his worries. I talk to individuals regularly with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about uniting people to the common understanding, in order that all of us can work towards the betterment of society.
The second participant We were there for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we might become more open to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.
