Lord (Robin) Teverson has been writing for PoliticsHome on the UK’s membership of Euroatom:
Last year’s referendum was not about Euratom. Leave and Remain were silent about this low profile, essential institution – a body that uses the EU institutions but is not part of it.
Put simply Euratom acts on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) as the ‘safeguarding’ agency for all its 28 member states, the same 28 members of the EU. It ensures that under international non-proliferation treaties all fissile materials are controlled and accounted for. Its inspections make sure the strict protocols and safeguards are in place on behalf of all its members, including the UK.
It agrees nuclear cooperation agreements with third countries, ensuring the safe supply of nuclear materials. The most important are with supply countries: Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, the USA and South Korea. Post-Brexit UK will have to renegotiate some 45 nuclear international agreements.
It is responsible for major nuclear research projects, the main funder of the Joint European Torus (JET) project in Oxfordshire. It guarantees the free movement of nuclear scientists and technicians. It governs the movement of radioactive isotopes used in nuclear medicine for the identification and cure of cancers.
Robin concludes:
So with the nuclear clock ticking what needs to happen? Firstly a withdrawal agreement. Positively this is one area where both Commission and UK have published position papers. But there is plenty of awkward detail, not least the ‘divorce bill’ and who owns which nuclear materials. The Government’s pitch is for a relationship outside of Euratom which is near identical to being within. That crosses an EU27 red line.
Then, our new relationship with Euratom has to be agreed. In parallel we must establish our own ‘safeguarding’ body, sufficiently resourced to be recognised by the IAEA. These are not simple transactions. Only then can we set about new agreements with our nuclear trading partners to secure nuclear fuels, parts, and expertise.
Government ministers insist there is no barrier to the import of medical isotopes. Others differ – their movement are specifically covered in the Euratom Treaty, in the same list as nuclear reactors. There is confusion. Once more, on things Brexit what ministers say is no longer trusted.
Big challenges lie ahead, all because our Government decided to exit Euratom on the basis that its rules are judged by the European Court of Justice.
It is said that ministers did not want to leave Euratom. They recognised the value of this efficient and quiet institution. It is a pity they didn’t have the moral courage of their convictions. There is still time to change their mind.
You can read the full piece here.



2 Comments
I just can’t get my head around the fact or thesis that any thinking politician or policy maker would want
1) to leave a thouroughluy sensible, extremely experienced, well functioning and IAEA-accredited organisation like Euratom, and
2) to build het (or their) own lilliput version of it, without using the expertise and the well-qualified staff (who now the British nuclear installations for ast least the past 40 years) of Euratom.
just because you want NOTHING you do in your surrogate EU arrangements to be judged bij the ECJ. When did the ECJ ever pronounce or intervene in ANY Euratom squablle? I’ve studied EU history (Books prof. Desmond Dinan about “Ever Closer Union”; 2d and 4th edition), but I cann’t recall anything controversial inside Euratom.
I lookedv it up in the index in the 4th edition (2010): nothing controversial, everything humming along quite nicely at Euratom. The same goes for what the the Euratom item in Timothy Bainbridge’s Penguin Companion to the EU (3d. ed; 2002) tells us. Thev French (big solists in EU and NATO policy at the time) were in the 1950’s and ’60’s only too happy to share the enormous cost; surely that goes triple for the present age?
This just about takes the cake in pig-headed, prejudiced, inefficient, money-squandering political autism, led not by common sense but populism.
let’s please, pretty please hope that Downing Street comes to its senses…
You assume that May has any sense to come to