Quote Originally Posted by Furunculu5 View Post
what happens if nations like the UK are not keen on EU defence integration, or the necessary political integration required to achieve that, and yet are happy to be NATO players?

doesn't that make NATO relevant and EU defence ridiculous?

the only difference between NATO and the possibility of EU defence is;
1. the inclusion of the US
2. the lack of political integration required.

seeing as europe refuses to properly spend on defence the US is outright necessary, much to its chagrin.
seeing as some nations are not interested in political integration the idea of EU defence is ridiculous.

what is out-dated or innappropriate about NATO really..............?
It is up to UK to decide what it does. There is still France who can give Nuclear umbrella to EU, if UK wants to associate more with US then continental Europe. Your statement about defense budget is ridiculous. What Europe lacks is over seas power projection capabilities. In a conventional sense of defense, the combined forces or just part of the armies of Europe can stop any invasion to Europe. You dont need political integration for mutual defense clause anymore then you need that for mutual currency.
Like i said before NATO is novadays more a tool of US then for defense of Europe and many countries that are pro EU, like the former EFTA countries, are not willing to join NATO. Europe does not need anymore US to defend itself from Soviet Union and Warsav pact and understanding that will benefit both the US and Europe. US is the closest ally of Europe and should remain so, but it would benefit both the EU and US, if EU would take care of its own defense. I am sure many of our American friends agree with me on this one.