🔗 Share this article Conversing Across the Gap: A Meeting Among Opposing Viewpoints Meeting the Individuals First Participant: Peter, 34, from London Profession Ex- civil servant, now a student focusing on public health Political history Supported the Green Party recently (and a affiliate of the political group); formerly Labour Party. Describes himself as “left, and globalist rather than patriotic” Amuse bouche A drawing of a tea cup Peter did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery Other Diner: A., 43, Harrow Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right” Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to read and write 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 issues we discussed are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life more or less follows the same curve wherever it is. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we had a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos. The second participant We shared starters – seafood rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I believe he was too. Would he criticize me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and Spain. We bonded over our love of London. Key disagreements The first participant I look at migration similar to sprinkling salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the dish tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned. Peter Akshat used an analogy about seasoning. It would be a funny place to exist if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the country. Akshat There are, sadly, people escaping oppression, but many migrants coming to the UK are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily contribute much and can burden the benefit system. No one compels you to move to a different nation for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you are able to support yourself and your relatives. The second participant We became confused with some of the facts. In my view it is the case that you come over and work and then after five years you get indefinite leave to remain. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, application costs are really high, there is an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we desire your labor, but we don’t want you. I think we have to have a certain level of humanity. Sharing plate The first participant Peter questions unregulated markets. So am I, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and ought to be promoted. The second participant We each have global outlooks. And we concurred that certain elements of society – government, the press – benefit from stoking division. We discovered shared understanding in fundamentals and ethics. For afters Akshat Peter believes that since the UK profited from colonial times, it should pay reparations to those countries. I simply think: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, current society were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Suppose the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is the UK in a position to manage that? Certainly not. Peter Until recently, I believe there was much reckoning with the colonial past. For example, upon my arrival to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the part that colonialism contributed to it. I hold that decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about 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 converse with people regularly with opinions are contrary to mine. It’s about uniting people to the common understanding, so that everyone can strive for the improvement of society. Peter We remained for 150 minutes. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of anything, but we each liked the meal, so we could hopefully be more receptive to engaging in dialogues with other people in the coming times.