In addition to the "it's cheaper" point (due to Huawei being a significant recipient of state aid, and European alternatives not being able to receive any state

In addition to the "it's cheaper" point (due to Huawei being a significant recipient of state aid, and European alternatives not being able to receive any state aid), it's worth keeping an eye on some of the wording being used by the UK government. They've said nothing safety critical or necessary to critical national infrastructure can run over Huawei base stations. It will be a brave (i.e. foolish) mobile operator that turns away large connected vehicle contracts (clearly there will be significant safety implications there), or large scale industrial IoT users. If the rules are applied as it seems they are designed to, it looks like the intention is to let the operators make that choice, rather than dictating who they will use, while putting in sufficient restrictions to heavily influence it. Prior to the government's (long overdue) decision on this topic, which came after 5G non-standalone networks were deployed in the field in some cities, the operators all came out to say how much it would cost them to remove all their Huawei equipment and replace it. They lobbied hard to be allowed to keep using it! But it seems that perhaps they have been given a decision that they themselves haven't quite realised will feel an awful lot like a ban...