I think his point, and one that has been made few times on this board is that MEASURED cloudbase (which is all that will ever be reported) is largely irrelevant in the process of flying an ILS whereas RVR is crucial which is why the approach ban is based on it. We have all flown ILS approaches where the cloudbase is reported as 200ft or below and LVPs are in force but you see the lights at 400-500ft. The base of the cloud is not solid and is quite variable in density, as long as the RVR is OK you can easily land from a CAT1 approach on almost all occasions when LVPs are in force which does make you wonder if the criteria for adopting them are wrong. Particularly relevant at places like LHR where the 50% reduction in flow rate causes chaos, costs airlines a small fortune every time it happens and more importantly makes me late home from work.
Interesting thread though, to be honest I had not idea that the ILS would safe guarded unless CAT2 or 3 approaches were in force and it wouldn't occur to me to ask. Despite what "blackmail" says above I can find no reference in our documentation that would prohibit a CAT1 approach without back-up power in fact our table (JAR-OPS) specifically allows it without a standby ILS or backup power for runway or approach lighting.
So, in answer to the original question, I would carry out a CAT1 approach to 200ft and argue about it later.