As I have said many times, it is purely elitist to argue against the IMCR on the basis of alleged poor pilot currency.
This is because while safety does derive from currency, it derives even more from automation resulting in a low cockpit workload.
The airline industry learned this decades ago. It is a FACT.
Today, most pilots flying serious IFR (particularly airways) are doing it in planes equipped as well as a BA 747 was 20 years ago, or equipped as well as many cargo 747s landing at Heathrow right now.
Should Europe regulate for minimum aircraft standard? They already regulate heavily for minimum equipment carriage. That, together with BRNAV (an IFR GPS with a current database) being mandatory for all practical Eurocontrol routes, means that there are virtually no "spamcans" flying serious IFR.
There are a lot of IMCR holders who fly these very capable planes and they use the Rating fully. Most of them are probably working towards an IR (usually the FAA one).
The IMCR holders with only spamcan access are intelligent enough to know they can't do a lot with it. Only a total idiot will be flying a spamcan with a radio hanging out of the panel by 1 screw, and with a knackered VOR receiver will dive into a cloud hoping to find a runway at the bottom of it.
That's why the IMCR safety record is so good. No regulation is needed - pilots aren't stupid.
So fly keep flogging this dead horse?
Often, on these forums, allegations are posted which are misleading, so somebody dives in to set things straight. But I don't think there is much point in debating this point anymore, with the same individuals.