Dear Sir,

There comes a time in the life of any country when leadership has to sell what may be unpopular to the public.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, in his pro stance to remain in the European Union, negotiated a deal with the EU that was well publicised. The deal he brokered seemed like a great one, but on closer examination, his bark was greater than the bite.

But the job was done, he came back from the negotiations jubilant, expressing victory over Brussels and promoting the notion that “we got a victory” and the best of the EU, and avoided the traps. He sold the message with passion and charisma, which good leaders must do whenever needed.

Let’s take the present immigration controversy in Bermuda: even the Progressive Labour Party supports the principle of granting long-term residency or status to those who have been here for 15 or 20 years. What it doesn’t support is the timing and the idea of creating, as it seems, additional voters just before an upcoming election.

The United Nations supports granting of status but is against using immigration as a means of influencing political outcome. So why could not the Minister of Home Affairs adopt a win-win approach?

It would be so easy to put certain conditions on granting status, including suspension of certain rights such as voting or standing for office for three years. Most recipients would be happy to have obtained status and at the same time remove any thought of political motives behind the act.

Unless, of course, there is a political motive, such an approach would be easy to sell.

The majority of the new beneficiaries of the Act will be Portuguese, who live in districts that are not marginal, so why cause public disruption over something that in the end will not make or break an electoral outcome?

On the other hand, the One Bermuda Alliance is seen as pulling a ploy. The party lacks salesmanship skills and the same could be said of the airport deal.

KHALID WASI