If Britain did choose a "British future" it would have substantially less influence than it does now and would no longer be able to punch above its weight. The idea of a Britain strong, free, unencumbered and with significant influence is an illusion. In reality, Britain is a third rate power of moderate wealth, and that’s it. There’s nothing WRONG with that, it just needs to be recognised.

No it needs to make a choice for a British future, Britain has always managed to punch well above it’s weight on the world stage by being very flexible about who it play with in which sandpit. Everyone seems to thinkl we should be led by the nose by someone else and that’s just stupid…

Obviously.

I mean, you can’t see this? *wipes foam from lips*

"watch out for hundreds of little log cabins appearing around scotland and the lakes as the germans expand their summer cottage empire from south from Sweden and Denmark. We’re being turned in to a summer destination."

The issue is indeed interoperability. However, it should be noted that, AIUI at least, the British have a problem getting kit to interoperate fully with the Americans due to the expense and the reluctance of America to share sensitive information with European states. It would be, from this point of view, easier and cheaper to attain interoperability with the European forces.

NATO has demonstrated successfully that multinational militaries can indeed operate together under a unified command quite easily. The major factor in success was a common military purpose and a common language – all NATO commissioned officers had to have an adequate command of English, for example. This contrasts with the Warsaw Pact where there was no official common language. Indeed, even within the Soviet army it was not unknown for Russian speaking officers to be unable to communicate directly with their men, although this was not as common as some would suggest. Trying to draw close parallels between the EU and the USSR, or between the proposed ERRF/Euro-army and the Warsaw Pact, is pointless, stupid and plain wrong, by the way.

On the more general point, I think people need to understand that Britain is NOT any more a great power capable of independent operation on a large scale, and really needs to make a choice between a European or an American future. Whilst Britain has much in common with the US (core legal system, language, basic culture), it is also historically a European power and its interests are more profoundly influenced by European events than by American ones. My gut feeling is that the European future is the best option.

Finally, on nuclear weapons – although I would be quite happy for Britain to dispose of a strategic nuclear element (i.e. Trident), I don’t think there is military justification for complete nuclear disarmament. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that the possession of nuclear weapons by the advanced powers is the reason, or even a contributory factor, in the striving of other nations to get them, and therefore complete disarmament would leave Britain without the ability to threaten equivalent response and at the same time would not achieve anything. Nations want nukes because (a) the technology exists and is proven, (b) it’s a big toy for macho dictators to flaunt their virility with, (c) it’s a lot cheaper than large conventional forces and (d) if they don’t get them their enemies will because of (a) through (c). Such is human nature, sadly.