As usual in European affairs, it's only the gladiatorial drama of the European Council's budget negotiations that makes the headlines. Meanwhile, at the heart of Europe , Labour MEPs are continuing to work hard with our Socialist colleagues on laws to make life better for everyone.
It's been a busy year for the European Parliament since I last reported to GMB members. All manner of legislation has come before us - from proposals to make batteries greener to new rules to stamp out discrimination against disabled air passengers.
One of our biggest debates this year was over the Working Time Directive. This directive, originally agreed back in 1993, created a package of health and safety measures to protect employees, most notably limiting how long they can be made to work by capping the working week at 48 hours. The directive applied across Europe, but the Tories secured a unique opt-out at the time which allowed employers to disregard the rules if they secured the agreement of individual workers.
In practice, as many GMB members have discovered, the availability of this so-called 'individual opt-out' means that employers often put pressure on workers to sign up to long hours despite the directive. Often this is simply taken as read, with the necessary paperwork being presented to new workers to sign along with their contract of employment.
In fact, some employers see the Working Time Directive as simply another box-ticking exercise. When I visited a Yorkshire factory recently, I asked managers how the rules were being implemented there. Misunderstanding my thinking, the proud reply came: "Oh, it's all fine - we keep within the rules. We make sure everyone signs up on day one!".
So the situation is clearly not good enough. And the issue came before Parliament again last year when the European Commission published a report concluding that abuse of the opt-out was widespread. No surprise there. But what should be done?
The Commission recommended dropping the opt-out, and after much debate and consultation with trade unions, Labour MEPs agreed. Employers - and some workers - campaigned vigorously for 'flexibility', arguing that longer hours are necessary, at least in some sectors such as those with seasonal fluctuations in the work-load. The government proposed to keep the opt-out, but with extra safeguards such as banning the practice of signing a contract and an opt-out at the same time.
The compromise deal eventually adopted by Parliament dropped the opt-out, but allowed working hours to be calculated over a longer 'reference period'. In other words, employees would be able to work more than 48 hours in any given week, as long as the average hours worked over any given year work out at no more than 48. We also agreed that the changes could be phased in to give employers time to adapt.
This deal is not the final word, however. As with most European legislation, the new rules will need to be approved by both elected MEPs and the ministers of the 25 member countries. It remains to be seen what the final shape of the deal will be, but in any case, Labour MEPs are committed to working closely with both Socialist colleagues and the government to find a solution that protects workers.
The second half of 2005 also saw the UK take over the rotating presidency of the European Council for six months. This is one of the most over-hyped jobs in the EU: despite the expectations that surround being "President of Europe", the presidency is simply the temporary chairmanship of one European institution. It has no decision-taking powers of its own - but it does provide the opportunity to chair skillfully, to broker compromises, and to place items higher up the (largely inherited) agenda.
Within these limitations, the UK's achievements were certainly not insignificant. Our main success was securing a deal on the EU budget - failure to to so would have been disastrous. But we also managed a number of less-trumpeted achievements: huge progress towards adopting a long-awaited directive on protecting workers and consumers from dangerous chemicals; progress on climate change; and agreement that the EU's Council of Ministers should meet in public when it discusses new laws, as the European Parliament already does.
This last measure was first discussed last year as part of the package of reforms put forward in the EU's draft constitutional treaty. Which brings me to the final hot topic in Parliament at the moment: how we can reform the EU to make it more democratic and efficient. That's what the constitution set out to do. Now, eurosceptics shout loudly about the French and Dutch no-votes showing that "Europe" has lost touch with public opinion. They pretend that the constitutional treaty, presumably unlike any other treaty, was an elitist project which the public is now revolting against. They never mention the referenda in other countries which endorsed the reforms - nor the fact that, in total, more people voted in favour than against.
What we have is not a mass revolt, but a divergence of views. In the EU, when countries' views diverge, the traditional pratice is to talk things through to try to overcome that divergence and to find a compromise solution. How best to do that remains to be seen. But one thing is already clear: the status quo is not sufficient for this Union in its enlarged form to function effectively or democratically. The issue of the future of Europe will not go away.