It seems like there is never a dull moment in Maltese politics and Dr Alfred Sant’s decision to contest the next European elections has given an additional twitch to an already interesting scenario. His candidature has still to be approved by the Labour Party but this is most likely to be nothing more than a formality.

Let’s be frank: for those of us who well remember Dr Sant’s efforts to stop Malta from joining the EU, his decision to contest the MEP election is a bit hard to digest. Had he had his way 10 years ago, there would not be any European elections for Malta to contest.

However, those who think that I should mercilessly criticise his decision will no doubt be disappointed when I say that his experience and intelligence put him in a unique position to make a valid contribution, once he is elected as one of Malta’s MEPs. This will happen provided that the rational and methodological thinker in him gets the better of his playwright instincts, for much of what he told The Malta Independent in an interview a few weeks ago was more conjectural than factual.

Take, for example, his continued insistence that, financially, Malta pays more to the EU than it receives. That is old hat. It was a 2003 campaign slogan which no one believed and which was totally blown out of the water after membership when Malta became – and continues to be – a net beneficiary from the EU budget. Malta has benefitted and continues to benefit from a multitude of EU-funded projects that have provided us with some essential infrastructure, training and investment.

I certainly cannot fault his political pragmatism when he says that he accepts that the membership issue was settled 10 years ago and that we now need to go ahead. But, somewhat incredibly, he still does not accept the verdict of the 2003 referendum, claiming that it was the election held a few weeks later that really mattered.

It could be a matter of interpretation, of course, but those who voted “yes” in the referendum held their ground in the general election – and that is undeniable. So like many others I begin to wonder why, a decade later, Dr Sant still finds it so difficult to come to terms with the referendum result and close the issue once and for all.

However, one cannot criticise Dr Sant for inconsistency. I might understand but not necessarily accept his self-assertion that he is not a eurosceptic. He has consistently said that Malta should not be part of the EU. He said it in the 1980s and went on repeating it right up to the referendum. He continued to hold his ground after membership and insists on it to this very day.

It must, however, be clear that by vying for a seat in the European Parliament he is effectively seeking to become an integral part of something he thinks is detrimental to Malta’s interests. This is a paradox which only he can resolve – unless, of course, he has some other agenda in mind.

I first met and worked with Dr Sant when he was elected Prime Minister and I had just started my professional career as an executive within the Chamber of Commerce, and if there are two things I really do appreciate about him, these are his honesty and his ability to dissect a problem and examine its various components. This clearly emerges when he refers to immigration, the function of our national parliament and its public accounts committee, the constitution and the tension between EU and national competencies.

I do not agree with all the points he raises, but his pronouncements trigger further thinking and useful debate. At a time where perception continues to dominate substance, this is something that we dearly need and which I fully appreciate.

The main question, however, remains as to which side of Dr Sant will dominate the next phase of his political engagement – Dr Sant the rationalist or Dr Sant the playwright who will try to obscure political realities by fiction? I guess the story is yet to unfold.