“Slaney has it correct. It is NOT necessary to get out of Euratom as well as leaving the EU. We can leave the EU but still be in Euratom.”
Very true. But matters in which Euratom is involved has the European Court of Justice as arbiters. One of the points of leaving the EU is to be free of the jurisdiction of that court. There’s little point in leaving the EU if the country is still to be bound by decisions made in a court that has no influence (for the UK) over anything else. The mistake, of course, was allowing Euratom to be subsumed into the jurisdiction of the ECJ and to be influenced by EU institutions. If it had remained an independent body (as it was originally founded) I doubt there would be this issue.
“Euratom controls the entire European stocks of Nuclear fuel and is the only organisation in Europe that is authorised to buy it.”
You’re doing it again, Eddie. It controls the stocks held by (and sought by) its members, not “the entire European stocks”. It is the only organisation in the area covered by its members authorised to trade in atomic material.
“…so why are we leaving eurotom anyone know?”
I should think, almost certainly, because it is an organisation which although a separate legal entity, it is influenced heavily by the European Commission and has any dispute it is involved in adjudicated in the ECJ. I think Mrs May, for all her faults, has understood that one of the principle reasons the UK electorate voted to leave the EU was so as to be rid of decisions made by foreign judges.