Important here to hold on to two critical points. https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/1302934662734643200

1. With one huge exception, UK legislation can say what it likes.

But - by section 7A of the Withdrawal Agreement Act - the Agreement remains supreme: it has “direct effect”. As Article 4 of the WA requires. Any legislation inconsistent with the Agreement has to be interpreted to be consistent with the Agreement or set aside.

So any legislative provision purporting to “interpret” “ambiguities” in Article 5 or 10 so that they have limited reach would be ineffective if the ECJ rules that they have a wider reach. UK courts would have to follow the ECJ, not the legislation.

2. The huge exception. If the statute says - in the drafting equivalent of letters visible from outer space - that it applies regardless of s.7A, then UK courts must accept that Parliament is instructing them not to follow s.7A.

But those letters visible from outer space also say: “this is a clear breach of Article 4 of the Withdrawal Agreement.”

There isn’t any way round that issue. If @PippaCrerar is right, then the Govt has balked from adopting approach 2: so what it is proposing is ultimately of political, rather than any great legal, interest.

But we will all have to see what the text says. Waffle and spin get newspaper space. But only the actual text of legislation affects the law.