In short, my answer is no. Not in the short term. Not in the medium term.
This is mainly a story to placate the Tory base. It is a rhetorical "Make Britain Great Again" story
Why do I say this? Read on...
"The UK’s agreement to retain key facilities in Germany, announced in September, will support critical NATO infrastructure, as well as providing the UK Army with a vital forward base on mainland Europe"
Because British security IS European security.
The question is what financial price do you pay for the following sort of strategic benefits:
-deterrence and assurance
-managing political risk
-base security v proximity to volatile regions
-freedom of action
-(that old chestnut) balancing European and global commitment
-Logistics and staging of forces
And here's why much of all this story is a pipedream...
The choice of partner depends on how to balance the mix of variables I outlined above.
If the UK has the perfect location but the partner won't allow the UK to use it to project force then why bother?
Not only is this entirely of its own making but there is also the potential for this challenging situation to remain until at least the next General Election in 2022.
1/ This government does not possess a majority in the House of Commons.
Consequently, and as we've seen over the MDP farrago, it has no mandate to take deep, grand strategic choices.
All it can do is tinker with defence.
Should the UK attempt to work through French or Dutch basing areas? Or should it develop its own independently?
Yes, UK defence twitter lit up with the possibility of winning wars in the South China Sea.