I agree. The proposal to give the HoC the right to approve regulations that breach the UK’s treaty obligations isn’t much of an improvement over affirmative resolution: and it cuts out the House of Lords, where the govt has no majority and has to persuade and can’t browbeat. https://twitter.com/lordcfalconer/status/1306287021820968965

As to setting “clear (sic) limits on the scope of judicial review” it’s hard to think of any more they could do to prevent the courts doing their job of scrutinising lawfulness apart from expressly excluding human rights review.

And “timeliness”? Any judicial review has to be brought within a week/a day/30 seconds of the making of the regulations?

The govt is still taking the power to infringe the treaty it signed, and to do so outside the usual justifications offered by international law (eg a response to fundamental breach by the EU) or the safeguards provision in Art 16 which is designed to deal with the unexpected.

That is to say, the govt will retain power to infringe a treaty it signed merely because it has decided it doesn’t like it any more.