Pace
I agree, but by the same token an approach TAF'ed as being within an IMC holders recommended limits in just the same way often goes below the recommended limits (but by a couple of hundred feet). The pilot is flying the approach and doesnt become visual at the recommended limit but is capable and competant to continue to a lower personal limit. So what does he do. Break off the approach because the CAA recommend he should do so? He is now faced with the "stress" of another approach, perhaps another missed, and then continuing en route to a diversion where the approach is above recommended limits. You see IMHO that is the problem with recommended limits that are meaningless. Setting a blanket recommendation that is in theory applicable to all approaches in all weathers might even be considered dangerous. Of course our man with his IMC could elect to not even fly in the first place unless the base was TAF'ed to be 300 feet above the recommended limits in case it went lower - where do you stop?
Of course, I never said the training was to the standard of an IR. Whether or not other EASA member states accept the rating is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is they dont accept an FAA IR in a member states aircraft which tells us a great deal about the rationality of some aspects of law making in this business.
I also was not promoting IMC holders as a matter of course flying to minima - in fact quite the opposite - I have repeatedly said they should fly to their own personal limits. So far as I am concerned personal limits include a number of factors not just limited to how low the base is forecast to be, but has a lot to do with en route weather and alternates.
The fact of the matter is there has never been an accident involving an IMC rated pilot flying in IMC conditions. That says a great deal about the rating and the standard of instruction - which should not be under estimated - and it all very well to say that IMC rated pilots do not use the rating in earnest - that is simply not true I can assure you - there are many who do.