I have read through the first 400 pages of the 600-odd in the EASA link posted by Gonzo above. Actually, a lot of it was really interesting. Interesting also to note who responded from the UK - Humberside for example. Clearly EASA are committed to seeing this through. While I would instinctively support folk's rights to do what they like, where they like, if they are legally allowed to do so - I'd support the freedom principle if you like - surely that is all very well until people exercising those freedoms choose to fly through the instrument approach track for CAT into a class G airport at 1000' and 3 miles. Having worked procedurally at a radar unit I've seen some worrying moments. (Yes, I know what the ATM is supposed to be used for!!) Freedom to do what you want is one thing but sound airmanship is another. Can any GA pilot really complain about having to carry and operate a transponder to have access to a TMZ for example? If the same is contiguous with class E you can drive through it VFR without talking to anyone but the people who NEED to know you are there do! So you won't hit that airliner you didn't see.... What ever the statistics about mid-airs and airprox's surely nobody will argue too much with that argument. Procedural Approach in class G has never been (for me) about separation of known traffic - that was the easy bit. It is about what you didn't know. Although the rule book said that if you didn't know about the traffic then it was not your problem. Maybe we should ask the Italians. I was under the impression that ALL of their airspace is controlled.
As to the CAP 1616 process, if the CAA support the principle of CAS - which they say they do - and EASA are mandating it, then surely the process becomes rather more straight-forward!