🔗 Share this article Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Between Different Perspectives Introducing the Participants First Participant: Peter, 34, London Profession Former government employee, now a learner studying community health Voting record Voted Green last time (and a member of the political group); formerly Labour. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist instead of nationalist” Amuse bouche A sketch of a tea cup he created as a child was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland Second Diner: A., 43, Harrow Occupation Risk manager in the construction sector Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has lived in the United Kingdom for half a decade, and voted Conservative. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre” Amuse bouche Akshat self-learned to read and write the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing” Initial impressions The first participant Over the last 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in Qatar, East Asia, the United States. The issues Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also global, because people's lives more or less evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we had a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, he opted for mojitos. The second participant We shared appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I believe he was too. Was he going to attack me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the US and Spain. We bonded over our affection for the capital. Key disagreements The first participant I look at immigration similar to adding salt to a meal. When you add a little bit, the food tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned. Peter He had a metaphor regarding seasoning. It would be odd to be if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the nation. The first participant There are, unfortunately, people escaping oppression, but many migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can burden the welfare system. No one compels you to move to a different nation for prospects, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your family. Peter We became confused with some of the facts. In my view 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 quite expensive, you pay an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we desire your labor, but we don’t want you. I think we have to have a degree of humanity. Common ground Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unregulated markets. So am I, but at the same time, economic growth benefits society and should be encouraged. The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that certain elements of the community – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We did find common ground in fundamentals and ethics. For afters Akshat Peter is of the opinion 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 the past with present day morality; eras vary, current society had no control of events decades or a century ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a huge amount of money. Is Britain able to manage that? No. The second participant In the past, I believe adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the part that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it should be about looking at past errors and our current responsibilities. Final thoughts The first participant It may not alter the my perspective, but I understand his worries. I converse with individuals every day with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the same page, in order that all of us can strive for the betterment of society. The second participant We were there for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I didn’t persuade him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we could hopefully be more open to engaging in dialogues with other people in the coming times.