Yes to a degree.
The world was never going end. For example anytime a new Framework Agreement is adoopted of it is thereafter implemented via legislation in each of the Member States. This invariably causes a degree of confusion as new work practices are adopted that supercede the old. Court procedures may change for example without the express knowledge or agreement of practitioners who muddle through initially until a body of precedent is established by the courts through their interpretation and application of the relevant legislation. This occurs over a period of time on the basis of trial and error and has operated in this manner for 50 years.
However Brexit is obviously on a different scale. Its a shitshow in terms of messiness but the biggest danger currently lies in what appears to be the unwillingness of politically motivated people, trenchantly opposed to Brexit, to allow the preparations to commence, …presumably because they do not wish to pre-empt the event itself.
If, as those who are currently charting our course woukd have us believe, there is no alternative to the Backstop and if, as Johnson has stated, Britain is not for turning on the same backstop issue, then we need to get down to the business of planning for the amended work practices that will ensue after 31 October.
Personally speaking id say a policy of ‘turning a blind eye for a bit’ wont really cut it if there are 100,000 job losses over a short period of time. Fianna Fail have a role to play here. If they want to truly rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the electorate then they need to demand that the Government begin the process of earnest preparation.
On the other hand, if ‘turning a blind eye’ will now suffice indefinitely, perhaps even up to the point that a trade deal can be agreed (?)( ie rendering the whole thing another Y2K), it raises obvious questions of its own around certain parties motivations.