I have read up on the court case listed for the Irish courts last may and the reasons by the plaintiffs for abandoning it. It would have been naïve of them to assume that the Irish government, listed as defendants!! Would have played dead, even if would ultimately be in Ireland's interest. The time to have initiated such an action would have been prior to article 50 being sent. Simply the timescale was too short for the types of action required.It doesn't seem to clarify anything; indeed, it is contrary, seemingly attempting to balance two arguments and come out with a different answer to that of a man responsible for the authorship of A50.
We have not been made party to the legal opinion, (usually the province of the Attorney General), which gave rise to May's claim about the irreversibility of the 'Brexit' process but it certainly didn't come from a maverick lawyer who's a bit of a blogger.....or maybe it did!
I'm sure your opinion of Lord Kerr is probably accurate but I think it should be remembered that he worked with European representatives when he constructed the A50 provisions so presumably, there was a broad consensus about its meaning and intent.
Given that, the only way we would ever know for sure is if the UK turned up for discussions one day and stated 'We've changed our minds - cancel the whole thing!' We shouldn't have to wait long for an EU response and I doubt very much that they would say, 'Well you can't!' That would then mean, effectively, the EU would be expelling a member state and I'm not sure there is a mechanism for that.
Tom
What would the effect have been on Anglo Irish relationship had the Irish court agreed that it could be recinded? What would the effect on UK public opinion be had it been referred to the ECJ by Ireland? . .. and without any expectation that the UK wished to recind it.