The authority should publish legal advice regarding its decision to leave the European atomic regulator Euratom, former minister Ed Vaizey has said.
He told MPs the UK was proposing to desist the body «on a technicality» when it was actually distinct from the EU.
Urging a rethink during a Procedural debate, colleague Bob Neill said it would «not be the first time» rightful advice given to ministers was wrong.
The government will publish a records setting out their stance on Thursday.
- Why does it matter if the UK leaves Euratom?
Look afters have previously said they are legally obliged to leave Euratom at the yet time as quitting the EU, insisting the UK can form a new arrangement with the body after Brexit, replicating its existing gains.
The decision has caused unease in the nuclear industry amid fears it could change safety, transportation of materials and access to cutting-edge research. The medical field has also expressed concern about the effect on treatments, including for cancer, if there is slim down access to the radio isotopes used.
Speaking in a Westminster Hall meditate on, a number of MPs from all parties urged the government to reconsider its position and be left either a full or associate member of the organisation, which was created at the unchanging time as the European Economic Community in 1957 but via a separate treaty.
Mr Vaizey, who has led a campaign against the move, said he accepted the nature of the legitimate advice received by the government but said MPs were in the dark about its nub and needed greater assurances.
«The trouble is that none of us have heed to b investigated that legal advice,» he said. «I know it is unprecedented for the government to divulge legal advice but I think it would be very useful to have some compose of distilled version of the legal advice on the link to Euratom.»
John Howell, the MP for Henley, held the legal position was not «black and white» as some were suggesting.
He revealed negotiating associate membership would safeguard funding until 2022 but revealed this must be done before the summer of 2018 when Austria, which he explained as «notoriously anti-nuclear», would take over the rotating presidency of the European Coupling.
Labour MP Daniel Zeichner said the decision to leave was being implied by the prime minister’s «antipathy» to the European Court of Justice and her desire to «sell for succeed in in its own referee rather than playing by the rules».
But Conservative Chris Unsophisticated questioned whether it was feasible for the UK to remain part of every organisation fixed to the EU and that if the UK had to leave Euratom then «so be it» — but it should do so on the «best possible instructs».
But Bill Cash said the legal necessity of exit was «unequivocal» while confrere Suella Fernandes said Euratom shared an «institutional structure» with the European Commission and European Court of Morality and to remain a member would be «going behind the back» of what the flagrant voted for in last year’s referendum.
For the government, Concern Minister Richard Harrington said there had been «alarming gests» in the press about what leaving Euratom would mean for the atomic sector and medicine but that these were unfounded.
«We do not believe that be off Euratom will have any adverse effect on the supply of medical transistor isotopes.»
Although they were covered by the Euratom treaty, it «does not dispose any restriction on the export of medical isotopes outside the EU».
He insisted the UK wanted to support a «collaborate and constructive relationship» with Euratom on all civil nuclear questions while establishing its own national safeguards regime under the auspices of the Support for Nuclear Regulation through new legislation.
On the legal issue, he said the UK’s settling to serve notice of Brexit through its Article 50 letter would sooner a be wearing been «defective» if Euratom had been left out.
«There was clear news at the time about the unique nature of the legal relationship between the split nature of the treaties and the inseparable nature of them,» he said.
The BBC’s Chris Morris remarked EU lawyers had been very clear that the UK would have to renounce Euratom when leaving the EU, the alternative being some kind of bilateral concordat which would have to be negotiated and would involve the ECJ in some considerations.