About an EASA IMC rating, I do not love that idea.
About an EASA reduced-training IR... why not, but only the ground school should be reduced (most of it is useless), not the flight school.
Frog....this is where I can't follow you. You are ok with an reduced training IR, but not with an EASA IMC rating (which may involve additional over and above what the UK IMC does). ....what's the difference?
Nothing more than a name as far as I can see.
You also say that you'd be happy for the ground studies to be reduced, but not the flight training. But the reality is that we all learn at different rates. The test shouldn't be how many hours you've done, but instead should be about what standard of flying that you have reached. The test should be able to distinguish those who have reached the required standard from those that haven't, irrespective of the number of hours. Pilot A, might be very quick and be able to reach the standard after 25 hours, and pilot B might never be able to reach the required standard.
dp
ps. no test....IMC test nor IR test, will be able to stop pilots flying outside their privlidges after getting their rating.