In this article for the Guardian, Schona Jolly is quite right to repeat what many legal experts have said - the meaning of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is unclear in many respects, and it hands fairly unprecedented powers to the Government to modify legislation by Order.  

But, in my view, Grieve's successful amendment 7 only affected the timing of the exercise of the powers granted by clause 9 (ie they cannot be used until Parliament has approved the new Withdrawal Bill), and not their extent. As such, it addresses a political concern about the implementation of a withdrawal agreement which has not been approved by Parliament, but not the 'legal' concern about the means by which it is to be implemented (ie by Order). 

Moreover, the other 'sweeping powers' granted by the Bill have survived unscathed through the Committee stage, in particular, the powers in clause 7 to 'correct' deficient transposed EU legislation and UK primary and secondary legislation by order. The only significant commitment made by Government in this regard is the acceptance of a 'triage' scrutiny stage. Nor has the Government given ground on the non-transposition of the Charter. The job of making this Bill fit for purpose isn't done yet.

Read more analysis here: https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/great-repeal-bill/31-great-repeal-bill-rebel-rebel/