🔗 Share this article Dining Across the Divide: A Encounter Between Opposing Viewpoints Meeting the Participants First Participant: P., 34, London Profession Former government employee, now a learner focusing on community health Political history Supported the Green Party last time (also a member of the political group); formerly Labour. Identifies as “progressive, and internationalist instead of nationalist” Amuse bouche A sketch of a tea cup Peter did as a child was once hung in the Irish National Gallery Other Diner: A., 43, from Harrow Profession Risk manager in the construction sector Voting record Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted Conservative. Describes himself as “somewhat right of centre” Interesting fact Akshat self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing” Initial impressions Akshat During the past two decades, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, East Asia, the United States. The topics Peter and I discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also universal, because human life largely follows the same curve across the world. I was expecting 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 – fishy spring rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for my sensitivity? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and Spain. We bonded over our love of the capital. Key disagreements The first participant I look at migration like adding salt to a dish. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Add too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty. Peter He had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the state was choosing some preferred demographic of the country. Akshat There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but many people coming to the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily contribute much and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to move to a different nation for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support your own needs and your relatives. Peter We became confused with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you get permanent citizenship. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, you pay an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is limited. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we don’t want you. I believe we must maintain a certain level of humanity. Sharing plate The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged. The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that some parts of the community – government, the media – benefit from 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 United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay reparations to those countries. My view is simply: you cannot judge the past with contemporary ethics; times are different, modern people had no control of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is the UK in a position to do that? No. Peter In the past, I don’t think there was much reckoning with colonial history. For example, upon my arrival to the UK, the public weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the part that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about signing a cheque, it ought to involve examining what went wrong and our current responsibilities. Final thoughts The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I understand Peter’s concerns. I converse with individuals regularly with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that everyone can strive for the betterment of society. The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank some sweet Japanese wine. I didn’t persuade him of anything, but we both enjoyed the meal, so we might become more receptive to engaging in dialogues with other people in the coming times.