I see that the proposed Services Directive, a reform adopted by the European Parliament and recently approved also by the ministers in the EU Council, is estimated to be worth over £5 billion a year to the British economy, according to Britain's Department of Trade and Industry.

Yet the adoption of this directive is only possible because there is qualified majority voting (QMV) rather than unanimity in the Council of Ministers. If there had been unanimity, the proposal would have been whittled away by various governments (France springs to mind) insisting upon deletions and derogations until nothing was left.

Those who oppose the abolition of the veto should remember that the veto is a double-edged sword - if we have one then so does everybody else and there are 24 other countries who can block things we want in the Council. In practice, Britain is rarely out voted at all and the QMV enables us to actually get European decisions that are beneficial.

The figures also put into perspective the budget deal made earlier this year. Whereas there was an outcry at Britain's net contribution to the EU possibly increasing by about €5 billion euros over the next several years, this single measure alone will bring in €5 billion every year. Indeed, the effects of the single market overall are of a far greater magnitude than the figures in the EU budget, which in total represents only one per cent of GDP.

Some of you may have noticed Quentin Peel’s article in the Financial Times (paid subscription necessary), lavishing MEPs with praise for the passing of the heavily amended Services Directive. Mr Peel goes as far as saying that the European Parliament “took a core piece of EU legislation and voted to change it drastically”, and in doing so we “may well have saved it”.

It's worth pointing out that this is our job! This is what we do, usually unnnoticed, week in, week out.

It's often hard for the general public to see through the eurosceptic mist, especially with nonsense claims of “unelected bureaucrats” floating around. But now that Mr Peel has set a precedent, perhaps other journalists will follow suit?