I suppose if it's the only way to keep them round the table ... still bugs me though.
The problem isn't how to keep them around the table without the veto. The problem is that without the veto
there is no table.
Twice in the 20th century, the world was plunged into terrible wars, because the great powers of the time had no common forum in which to meet, argue policy, and reject initiatives that they found to be too destabilizing or threatening to their interests.
Hard on the heels of those horrors, several of the powers armed themselves with nuclear weapons. More than ever, such a forum was needed at that point. It's still needed today, for all the same reasons.
A veto seat on the UNSC isn't a prize to be won, or a reward handed out for good behavior. It's a geopolitical pressure-release valve, installed to prevent exactly the kind of misunderstandings that in the past led to global war, and today would lead to global thermonuclear war.
If nothing else, it might be an idea to reflect the global balance of power a bit more accurately. For one thing I suspect Germany (particularly with Merkel's quiet diplomacy) probably has much more influence on European affairs than Britain and France combined nowadays.
India and Pakistan, both armed with nuclear weapons and exposed in relative hotspots, are probably more appropriate candidates for voting membership than Germany, which lacks a nuclear arsenal and is anyway already sheltered under the twin umbrellas of NATO and the European Union.
It's not about who has the most regional influence. It's about who can contribute to the onset of a nuclear war.