The Conservative revolt over Theresa May’s plan to withdraw from the Euratom nuclear treaty has grown, with one former minister accusing the government of cutting off its nose to spite its face.

A string of Tory MPs opposed leaving the body for nuclear cooperation during a Westminster Hall debate called by Labour’s Albert Owen, suggesting May has no Commons majority for the move.

The government insists that leaving Euratom is an inevitable consequence of triggering article 50 and proceeding to Brexit – a position shared by the European negotiators.

However, around a dozen Conservative MPs are pushing for the government to fight harder for the UK to stay in Euratom, which oversees the movement of nuclear materials across Europe.

Bob Neill, a former Tory housing minister, warned the government against “cutting off your economic and scientific nose to spite your political face”.

“We should do all that is possible legally to maintain those benefits, by whatever means it takes. We should not allow any thoughts of ideological purity to get in the way of achieving that,” he said. “My judgment is that if we can legally remain within Euratom, we should do so.”



Trudy Harrison, a Tory MP representing Copeland, the constituency of the Sellafield nuclear site, said leaving the Euratom treaty without quickly replicating its benefits could risk jobs and safety.

Q&A What is at risk if the UK quits Euratom? Show Scientists have warned that British power stations may not be able to source nuclear fuel if it cannot be legally transported across borders. The shipment of medical isotopes used in scans and cancer treatment is also said to be jeopardised. European workers on shared research projects, such as experimental fusion reactors, face an equally uncertain future without Euratom’s separate guarantees of freedom of movement. Arranging new rules to ensure safety and govern shipments should not be that hard; but the cost of any short-term chaos is hard to justify given that nobody ever complained about the minor compromises imposed by Euratom on British sovereignty in the first place.

“Without an approved safeguards regime, as well as new bilateral cooperation agreements, nuclear trade to and from the UK would stop or at least slow down, which would be economically crushing for my constituency – a community which is hope to thousands of nuclear workers and is a centre of nuclear excellence,” she said.



Other Conservatives to speak of their worries about leaving Euratom included Ed Vaizey, a former culture minister, who said he was concerned about the lack of impact assessment on the consequences. He claimed the government had conceded the point on leaving the nuclear treaty on a “technicality” and urged it to allow a working group on Euratom to see the legal advice.

Another Tory, Antoinette Sandbach, said the UK had been awarded £500m of contracts in the nuclear fusion supply chain, adding: “All of that is put at risk, is it not, if we leave Euratom?”



Several Labour MPs accused May of having an inflexible approach to leaving Euratom because of her red line on not allowing membership of any body overseen legally by the European court of justice. Daniel Zeichner, MP for Cambridge, accused her of having a “fetish” about it.



Paul Blomfield, a shadow Brexit minister, urged the government to note the “clear consensus” in the debate, adding: “If [May] doesn’t shift her position on Euratom, parliament will shift it for her.”



A paper from the government on Britain’s position on Euratom is due imminently, possibly as soon as Thursday, when the government will publish its EU repeal bill.

The Guardian reported on Monday that the government was considering some kind of affiliate membership of Euratom, similar to that held by Switzerland, in order to head off the revolt, or paying money to an international agency to set up an independent arrangement.

This follows a warning that cancer patients could be at risk if the government fails to stay part of the group and the European atomic energy community.

Dr Nicola Strickland, president of the Royal College of Radiologists, told the Evening Standard she feared the risk of “Brexatom” could threaten the supply of radioactive isotopes, used in scans and treatment.

Responding to the Westminster Hall debate, Richard Harrington, a business and energy minister, insisted that warnings about nuclear safety and the consequences for cancer treatment were “alarmist”.

He said the UK would “avoid the cliff edge”, adding: “We’re ready and we’re confident that we can find common ground.”



Harrington also promised the UK government was keen to ensure minimal disruption to civil nuclear trade and cooperation with non-European partners. He said the UK was negotiating with the US, Canada, Australia and Japan to have the “appropriate cooperation agreements” in place.

“The government is determined that the nuclear industry in this country should continue to flourish in trade, regulation and innovative nuclear research, and we’re determined to have a constructive, collaborative relationship with Euratom. The UK is a great supporter of it and will continue to be so,” he added.