This is not a Europe vs UK matter. I interviewed the head of EASA, Patrick Goudou, last week. Just like the DfT he wants to "remove the advantages" of operating on a third-country registration in Europe. He says he is under pressure from the FAA, whose position is that they cannot provide safety oversight in Europe.
At the instigation of AOPA, the JAA is looking at changes in the JAR-FCL IR(A) with a view to making it more accessible to pilots here. After two years of effort, a JAA LST Working Group has been set up to propose elements for removal from the theoretical knowledge test. It looks like the flying will remain at 50 hours, but two blocks of 10 hours can be done before the IR course is started, thus spreading the cost and making the time element less onerous.
I think EASA will on balance be an improvement for UK general aviation. Goudou proposes a private licence that would be administered by industry, not EASA or national authorities (similar to the NPPPL) and would allow the holder to fly a non-complex single anywhere in Europe. It would have 'bridges' to an ICAO-compliant licence so that a proportion of hours could be carried onto a commercial licence. This at a time when the CAA wants to milk another £5 million in fees out of general aviation and sub-15 tonne AOC operators. Despite losing staff and responsibilities to EASA the CAA's budget goes up by £3 million next year, and under the "user pays" principle that comes out of your pocket - plus the six percent profit the CAA is required to make from the industry.
EASA was set up because national authorities were given leeway to interpret and implement JAR-FCL their own way, and made a complete dogs dinner of it. We all suffered. In the coming turf war, I wish EASA well.