RE: Procurement...
Better integration of procurement both as a requirements/design and manufacturing outcome was exactly what PESCO was designed to produce. Now, certain European nations wanted to hijack that into a protectionist captive market, entirely to exclude US defense concerns (while knowing that the reverse wasn't likely to be true.) They have good individual strategic reasons for doing so, but certainly it was going to make smaller European nations a bill-payer for that one nation's strategic end of procurement "independence."
Again, less a standing European Army and more PESCO is better use of EU defense clock-cycles IMO. Its unlikely that any level of defense integration will allow for critical military capacity to be a shared/pooled asset (the requirements for air policing/air sovereignty vs. airlift or offensive vs. defensive cyber capacity, for two examples.) Nations will want their critical defense requirement flagged and under their direct control.