It will be far longer than a few months before we will know where EASA is heading.
A few years, more likely.
GA is indeed a soft target but the EASA proposals are going to hit the bigger stuff, which is far more politically powerful. This is what (reportedly) clobbered the previous "kick out N-reg" proposals; one in France c. 2004 and one in the UK c. 2005. GA did make a huge fuss but I bet you anything you like that the real action was done behind the scenes, at top political levels.
That's why this stuff is so opaque; we can read and comment on these proposals until we are blue in the face, and worry like hell, and a year or two later either something totally different emerges or nothing at all changes. EASA claims to be immune to external pressure but in reality they are an agency of the EU and are thus controllable by the usual political interests which have always dominated the EU.
Did you see that bit in the papers about the latest scandal in Brussels, where it was discovered they used vast quantities of tropical rainforest timber to decorate their HQ? The place is run by corrupt crooked bent officials who do as they please and sod everybody else. This is normally a bad thing because you get a lack of transparency in decisionmaking, but it is also a good thing because it means that pragmatic political interests win over in the end.
If it was not for the non-AOC light jet crowd, IFR GA as we know it would be dead in Europe long ago.
I am a pessimist too, or at least a realist I hope, but sometimes you see something too good to be true and it usually is, and equally sometimes you see a proposal which is just too horrid to be feasible - and it usually is too.