A clear majority of Engineer readers believe that the UK should stay within the Euratom Treaty as a full or associate member after leaving the European Union.
It’s still not clear what the UK is going to do about its membership of the European Atomic Energy Community, better known as Euratom, following its scheduled exit from the European Union. A policy paper published last week by the Department for Exiting the EU set out a desire to replace the functions of Euratom with a UK body, but has been criticised by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee for not providing detail on ownership of Euratom’s UK-located nuclear safeguarding equipment; any timetable for transition to a UK regulator or, more alarmingly for many, on acquisition and movement of medical radioisotopes. But if David Davies and his negotiating team take any notice of the readers of this publication, they’d see an overwhelming desire to stay within the Euratom Treaty.
Of the 356 readers who responded to the poll, a clear majority — 54 per cent — thought the government should amend the legislation triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty so that the UK could stay within Euratom as a full member. Taken with the 21 per cent who thought we should negotiate associate membership, duplicating Switzerland’s status but staying under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for this matter, and that makes an overwhelming three-quarters of respondents in favour of Euratom. The smallest proportion of respondents, 12 per cent, thought we should create a new legal body to oversee nuclear regulation, while 13 per cent declined to pick an option.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this subject.
Unfortunately this government doesn’t believe in regulations and experts.
This is the answer I got in February this year when I contacted my MP about this question. To my mind it clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of the importance to remain in Euratom. I came at it for the angle of the research on fusion (Jet and ITER), but the medical aspect is obviously extremely important. This has been copied without change from Mr Hind’s email.
………………………….
Dear Mr Biddlecombe,
Thank you for contacting me about the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
As I understand, leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the European Union as they are uniquely legally joined. I am reassured, however, that the government will continue to support this organisation and will seek continuity of co-operation and standards. This includes the government’s wish to maintain the UK’s mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with the European Union.
Rest assured, the government remains entirely committed to the highest standards of nuclear safety, safeguards and support for the industry. I am also assured that the collaboration between scientists and those in the nuclear sector is one of the important aspects of the continued co-operation that Ministers want and intend to see continued.
The Prime Minister has outlined very clearly in her Industrial Strategy that the government intends to support the scientific community and to build as much support for it as it can after we leave the European Union. That is why, when discussions begin, Ministers will negotiate with the aim of creating a mechanism that will allow vital collaborative research to continue.
On a final note, Euratom passes to its constituent countries the regulations, rules and supervision that it inherits from the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which the UK is still a member. If, for whatever reason, it is not possible to come to a conclusion involving some sort of relationship with Euratom, the UK will no doubt be able to reach one with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is possibly the most respectable international body in the world.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Kind regards,
Damian Hinds
The UK seems to have shot itself in the foot again because nobody understood what coming out of the EU would mean. But don’t despair, Boris and Co. assure us that a bright future lies ahead for the lucky few who don’t need radioisotopes used in medicine
Shot themselves in both feet on this one. I fear we have politicians who have no idea of the technical depth and complexity of all of this relating to nuclear issues. It is a complete and utter mess.
The options don’t include the third party route. The Euratom treaty has articles which allow for the supply of e.g. JET by third party countries (article 10), and also allows for agreements between Euratom and third party countries (Chapter 10 – “External relations”). These two tools could readily be used to create a solution which maintains for all practical purposes the status quo.
However I have no faith in the ability or willingness of the civil servants and politicians to do anything which involves working for the common good and reach a simple win-win contractual arrangement.
I am sorry but we must leave the EU and its influence “whatever the cost”
Ah well! stupidity and bigotry must have their say, I suppose, in a democratic society–whether we should take any notice is another matter. WHAT exactly is so wrong with the EU that it arouse this bilious attitude towards such cultivated and pleasant people? Having lived there over the years, nothing I have found comes to mind on our behalf–perhaps envy of their lifestyle and gorgeous local wines………?
We must be scraping the bottom of the barrel now of negative features caused by Brexit for the remoaners to amplify and drool over, but I fully expect Vince Cable to pull a further few rabbits out of the hat.
Personally I now find the hype on this subject (Brexit) tiresome and very boring.
The majority of the British population are not stupid, let’s have some positivity for a change.
The polls on this site are always concerning negatives.
Positivity… are you joking ? are you for real? there is no upside to this debacle, there is only downside, there is no cake for anyone and if you are sick of hearing about it then go and get your ears plugged because there will be no other story for the next ten years!
I agree with Ken – we must have Brexit whatever the cost, real or imaginary.
For Great Britain to have a great future as a sovereign nation, it’s absolutely essential that we extricate control of our country from the insidious grip of the EU club and the ECJ.
Running our own show, we will all be better off in the long run.
“For Great Britain to have a great future as a sovereign nation..”
Does this mean we will continue to have a Queen/King? I gather the future of the monarch is not in doubt ( perhaps the only USP we actually have? ) I am still not sure what it is we are going to sell in the future that will set us apart and above from the 500,000,000 potential customers and suppliers across the 22 miles of water which separate us from them. Will someone please advise.
I know, is it the Spice Girls, Insurance, Financial services, property and the agents who deal in such and weapons?
I think this is something that is also now questionable. Why do we have an unelected head of state paid for (excessively) by the taxpayer? Increasingly the whole rotten edifice of governance and government looks as if it is about to collapse. Shelf life limits have been reached. Time for something more democratic and reflective of modern life and not hidebound by arcane antics and “traditions”. How about compulsory voting (or face a huge fine) for all registered voters, some agreed form of PR system and perhaps most devastating “none of the above” on a polling slip. That would detonate under the body politic!
Am I missing something here? other members of Euratom include the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and South Africa and I would say that it’s a fair bet that none of those countries would accept the ECJ as the ultimate arbiter or any of the other constraints imposed on the UK whilst we are members of the EU, so why is it a problem for the UK to leave the EU and remain in Euratom? Can someone please explain?
A reminder to readers that this poll / story is about the UK’s proposed Euratom exit and not the wider rights or wrongs of EU membership. From now on only comments that relate directly to this topic will be published.
Good point from Peter Thomas, Internationally combined bodies do not have to be in other relationships. In addition, the ECJ can be accepted for specific contracts. Again it is common in international work to nominate an independent judiciary for any disputes; Switzerland commonly fulfils this role with the Canton specified in the contract, as an arbiter, the ECJ’s role is not the same as that in in the EU.
I’d certainly be surprised if they refused our financial contribution!!!
Yup. That’s why the majority of the British population did not vote for Brexit.
An interesting insight into Euratom and radioisotopes appears in a new POSTnote from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Number 558 July 2017, Supply of Medical Radioisotopes.
http://www.parliament.uk/post
The lead into this poll talks of “a warning from the Royal College of Radiologists on how [Brexit] might effect (sic) the availability of radioisotopes used in medicine”.
According to the POSTNote:
The POSTNote, as usual, packs a lot of information into a short paper that is simple enough for even the dimmest of MPs to understand.
Whether or not you believe the government’s interpretation and assurances is, of course, another matter.