Dining Across the Gap: A Encounter Among Different Viewpoints

Introducing the Individuals

First Diner: Peter, 34, from London

Profession Former civil servant, now a learner studying public health

Political history Voted the Green Party recently (and a affiliate of the party); formerly Labour. Describes himself as “progressive, and internationalist rather than nationalist”

Amuse bouche A sketch of a tea cup he did as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland

Other Participant: A., 43, Harrow

Occupation Risk manager in the construction sector

Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the UK for half a decade, and voted the Conservative Party. Identifies as “slightly right of centre”

Amuse bouche He self-learned to understand the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”

Initial impressions

The first participant During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, East Asia, the US. The issues Peter and I discussed are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because people's lives largely evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we had a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.

The second participant We shared appetizers – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and the Iberian Peninsula. We connected through our affection for the capital.

Key disagreements

Akshat I view immigration like sprinkling salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.

Peter Akshat used an analogy about seasoning. It would be odd to exist if the government was choosing some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.

Akshat There are, sadly, people fleeing persecution, but a lot of migrants coming to the United Kingdom are economic migrants who do not necessarily contribute much 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 are able to support your own needs and your family.

The second participant We became confused with certain details. In my view it’s like you arrive and are employed and then following a half-decade you obtain indefinite leave to remain. Nothing is automatic. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, application costs are really high, there is an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I think we must maintain a certain level of humanity.

Sharing plate

Akshat Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and should be encouraged.

The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of society – government, the press – benefit from creating conflict. We discovered shared understanding in basic principles and ethics.

Dessert and debate

The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom profited from the colonial era, it should pay compensation to those countries. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history 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 money. Is Britain able to manage that? Certainly not.

The second participant In the past, I don’t think there was much reckoning with colonial history. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule played in it. My view is decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it ought to involve looking at past errors and where we should be now.

Final thoughts

The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to people every day whose views are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that all of us can strive for the improvement of the community.

The second participant We were there for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we both enjoyed dinner, so we could hopefully be more open to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.