[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’ll be unsurprised that I’m sceptical.

Ireland, with its lower population, will presumably need less.

It will still need them. How do other EU countries cope with long distances?


The ongoing claims about non-availability of radioisotopes is linked to Euratom, a separate organisation from the EU.

But

The government's answer to this is that medical isotopes are not fissile nuclear material - that is, capable of reacting - so they are not subject to international nuclear safeguards. According to Science Minister Jo Johnson, their availability "should not be impacted by the UK's exit from Euratom".

The UK joined Euratom when it joined the EEC in 1973. It is a separate legal entity from the EU, but is tied up with its laws and institutions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). No country is a full member of Euratom without being a member of the EU.
...
The second reason for quitting Euratom is the government's interpretation of the Brexit result. Vote Leave campaigned to restore British sovereignty and "take back control" by ending the supremacy of EU law over domestic law.
In her speech to the Conservative Party conference in October, Theresa May made this rather more specific, pledging to ensure "the authority of EU law in this country ended forever". This stance has been called the "ECJ red line" - in other words stopping the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg having any authority in the UK.
...


Dominic Cummings, who was campaign director of Vote Leave, this week criticised what he called "government morons" who want to withdraw from Euratom. "Tory Party keeps making huge misjudgements re what the REF was about. EURATOM was different treaties, ECJ role no signif problem," he said on Twitter.

Given that Euratom was explicitly mentioned in the Article 50 letter, any reversal of withdrawal would be difficult, and an act of Parliament would probably not be enough.

The idiot May is solely responsible for all that.

What's more, staying in the nuclear agreement would not be a matter purely for the UK to decide. The EU, which has published a position paper on Britain's departure from Euratom, would also have to agree. That could make things complicated.Various options have been mooted for an alternative to full Euratom membership. Switzerland, not an EU member, has a special status as an equal partner as an "associated country". This could be an option explored by the UK. But sticking to the ECJ red line might make that path difficult.

The EU being obstructive yet again?

On the date of withdrawal, the Treaties, including the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (the "Treaty" and the "Community"), cease to apply to the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA") and bound by international conventions to which it is a party in its own right. From the withdrawal date, the United Kingdom will have sole responsibility for ensuring its compliance with international obligations arising therefrom.

So is this all part of the nonsense that is Project Fear?