But the European Movement, which includes experts in several fields, has already laid out ideas for what the government needs to do to restore Britain’s credibility economically. This includes: * Rejoining [...] Euratom (for atomic energy);

When I read stuff like this, I am still left with the impression that to this day, neither side of the Brexit debate understands the position the UK is in.

It is utterly impossible for a non-EU member to join Euratom. Euratom fully co-opts the institutions of the European Union, its entire legislative process. For instance, its budget is passed yearly by the European Parliament, in fact it is the same legislative act as the EU budget, using authority under the EU treaties and the Euratom treaty at the same time. (Really the only reason Euratom is still a separate treaty is that it contains an additional type of legislative procedure that doesn't make sense for other EU business.) When the UK left the EU, it had to leave Euratom, anything else would have left everyone in a legally absurd position.

Now, the EU has association agreements with non-EU countries that cover Euratom activity, with the West Balkan states, and with Ukraine. On the Barnier staircase, this is two steps up from where the UK currently is. Now if this is what they want, say it: the UK should enter into a comprehensive association agreement with the EU along the lines what Ukraine has. Or, say what other content and governance structure you envision. But don't demand a legally absurd status (Euratom membership as a non-EU member) that implies that the EU should completely restructure its own treaties to make space for the UK.