With regards your question: The benefits of all this work will be that we will regulate ourselves, that we will not be subject to the rulings of some bureaucrats somewhere we've never heard of, let alone ever wanted to visit. The money we send to Brussels will stay in this country, paying for bureaucrats to regulate our aviation industry, their wages being pumped back into the British economy, boosting the overall welfare of all. THAT is the benefit. We will not see EASA rulings banning the IMCr because it doesn't fit with the LBA's own script of how instrument flying should be. We will have rules based on OUR needs, not on the worst compromise that all nations agree to. We didn't need EASA in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Why are we so sure that we will need EASA in the 2020s, especially with technology on our side?
Even North Korea has twigged that in the age of global travel and economics regulation is by consensus amongst nations. EASA didn't ban the IMCR it faced up to trying to get national ratings sorted on a European wide licensing system the solution was IR(R) mountain ratings and Brevet de Bas were similarly coped with. EASA is a decision made primarily with the convenience of CAT in mind so pilots from any country can fly Easyjets anywhere with no problems, we get some benefits and EASA has already twigged that light touch risk based approach to GA is a better answer and is making progress down that road. It's a slow process but the direction is sensible.