For heaven's sake Lox, try to get a grip of the enrolled bill rule. Have a look at Pickin -v- British Railways board.

And read S. 1 of the bill. In summary a minister may by order make any order to repeal any legislation if he "considers" (which is a test only of his subjective intent) would remove any burden.

Judicial review will not in general lie of a wholly subjective power.

And again in general JR will not lie of policy matters, see the GCHQ case.

You expound a constitutional theory that the UK courts will examine the constitutionality of primary legislation. Quite simply, they do not and will not. They have no power to do so. They may examine the lawfulness of secondary legislation and in some cases the "Wednesbury reasonableness" of the exercise of powers, but an exercise of a power will not be held "Wednesbury unreasonable" unless NO reasonable body could hav reached that decision.

The courts, even the "New Labour" "Supreme Court" do not have the powers of the US Supreme Court, nd the UK does not ahve an entrenched constitution against which to examine the constitutionality of primary legislation.