Interesting set of proposals. NB that the critical difference between the WTO anti-subsidy rules (in the ASCM) and EU State aid rules lies in enforcement rather than content.
Hence quite a few of these proposals involve features familiar to State aid lawyers: repayment of unlawful subsidies (often quite punitive in effect, especially if the beneficiary has spent much of the grant on stuff the State wanted done/built); a third party non-State enforcer.
NB too that the critical question about the proposed new UK anti-subsidy regime isn’t the trumpeted replacement of the basic definition of what is caught by the rules (“subsidy” a la WTO in place of “State aid” a la EU). That change actually doesn’t amount to much, in itself.
What really matters is enforcement. Who will enforce? How independent is the enforcer? What are its powers? What happens if unapproved subsidies are granted? Does the beneficiary have to repay? Do affected third parties have rights to get an injunction/damages?
