BEagle, it is clear that we are never going to see eye to eye on this matter - they do say that there is none so committed as a convert.
It is also clear that it must be my memory that is at fault since, not only is my recollection of the 'industry's' involvement in the introduction of JAR-FCL at variance with yours but also, I have no recollection of your presence on any of the advisory committees at the time. Ah well, I suppose it's inevitable that memory fades with age.
For the record, my recollection is that, at every step of the implementation process, amendments were being put out to consultation. Looking back on my notes from the time, it seems that plenty of comments and suggestions were received from the airlines and the , then, CAP 509 schools.
It is also interesting to note that many comments were received from the USA, including one from the wife of a FAA instructor complaining that introduction of JAR-FCL1 would adversely affect her husband's income. The volume and content of comments from the US were instrumental in the drafting of provisions, later included in NPA 14, to allow for training to take place outside of JAA member states.
However, among all this feedback, I can find none from AOPA, or any of the other bodies now involved, until it was all too late.
Incidentally, it would appear, from your last post, that it was only recently, when the CAA stepped in and started banging heads together, that AOPA began properly to consult with the 'industry' whose support for the NPPL it had long, and fraudulently, claimed.
I have no 'objection' to the NPPL per se, I believe it be an irrelevance that will do nothing either to improve safety or to decrease substantially the cost of recreational flying. Few, if any, will reach an adequate standard in the minimum hours. It will, however, be interesting to examine the statistics concerning the relative levels of involvement of NPPL vs PPL holders in incidents and accidents. You can bet that SDAU and the UKAB will be polishing their microscopes.
My real concern is that none of this would have been necessary had the PPL not been included in JAR-FCL in the first place, something that would not have happened without the interference of AOPA and which, far from being entirely reasonable, was completely unnecessary when mutual recognition of PPLs was already, effectively, in place with a minimum of bureacracy. I never encountered any problems getting my licence validated for use in other european states prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL1, all that was normally required was an exchange of faxes. (Apart, perhaps, in france and it seems that JAR-FCL has done little to improve that situation.)