This has been done before on another thread. It might be that EASA (and CTC) have got a little mixed up between 'instrument flight' and 'flight under IFR'.
The requirement of 200 hours IFR time for the the IRI does not mention that it has to be with sole reference to instruments (apart from the simulator bit which is optional). Nor does the CTC job advert.
It's actually very easy to fly in accordance with the instrument flight rules in the UK. You don't need an IR and you don't have to file a flight plan. In theory, you can just follow the relevent rules of the air and log your IFR time!
On the other hand, most of the instrument flying during my IR was under the hood whilst flying VFR. In theory this wouldn't count towards the IFR requirement!
I'm sure that this isn't what the very clever eurocrats actually meant when they wrote their new rules. I would *guess* they meant 'instrument flight' instead of IFR. But write it they did.
The upshot is that anyone with about 500 hours or more can claim to have 200 hours IFR and it would be very difficult to prove them wrong. They wouldn't even need an IR.
As for the CTC side of things, ask them to clarify the IFR requirement if you get an interview.
Don't get me started on VFR/IFR at night in the UK. A complete mess.