There may have been some anti-concorde lobbying in the USA from environmentalists but I think history will record that Concord was the wrong plane for the time and possibly technically questionable for the passenger market -- fuel tank penertrations by exploding tyres had been reported before the French crash.
Considering some of the other technical debacles that older readers may remember: the Spey engined Phantoms that gave the RAF the worlds most expensive slowest F4s, the RB211 carbon fibre blade debacle, not to mention the Comet.
Come to that the UK taxpayer is still paying for the poor level of DH build standard in the current delays to the Nimrod MR4. And in a similar fashion if we go back to the 1940's when the US car company Packard were contracted to build Merlin engines under licence that had to completely redraw all the blueprints with correct tolerances in order to produce the engines in quantity.
It all looks very cottage industry.
Maybe those goverment advisors are correct and the British aircraft industry can't really manage without being subject to adult supervision from European partner companies...