'Breached but perhaps not.destroyed'?
The desperation shown here really is palpable and pityful. They're desperate to see life in something that's already been declared dead. They don't want an effective system, they just want an easy life - just look at their desperate search for reasons to avoid actually taking on complaints.
Safe harbour isn't resting, stunned or merely pining for the fjords. There's no risk of Safe Harbour going 'Voom'. Safe Harbour has passed on. Safe Harbour is no more. Safe Harbour has ceased to be. Safe Harbour has expired and gone to meet its maker. Safe Harbour is a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. (with apologies to Monty Python)
Since Safe Harbour has been declared invalid it's somewhat of a puzzle how the ICO could continue to justify using model clauses or BCRs. They never go anywhere near explaining *WHY* they think BCRs or model clauses are still acceptable beyond shrugging and telling us 'well, they haven't been thrown out in a court yet, just don't blame up if things change' (trying to come to any determination themselves would mean - shock, horror! - WORK)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legitimacy_of_other_measures_use
I suppose expecting the ICO to actually do some work would be considered a 'kneejerk' reaction...
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2429132/top-eu-court-rules-safe-harbour-invalid-leaving-us-data-transfers-in-tatters