I would challenge Pace's very generalised assertions concerning European GA, though I agree that there are countries which have a tendency towards bureaucracy. Interestingly, one of the most bureaucratic is France, where GA flourishes. Italy, which is a governmental nightmare, was home to the likes of the Siai Marchetti, Falco and now Alpi Pioneer and Tecnam. Some of the most dynamic innovation in light aviation is in the former eastern block countries.
GA has flourished or withered according to the state of individual government regulation and social, historic and economic factors. Our own CAA does not exactly have an unblemished record, particularly in the area of aircraft certification, but paradoxically the UK has a vibrant Permit sector where the CAA happily delegate administration to the LAA and it is of course home the the IMCR. Let us not forget that the IMCR is almost unique in the world.
Now things are changing. JAA FCL was essentially based upon ICAO standards, as were most national PPLs. The advent of the light sports licence (a name some hate) is not to my mind evidence of a Europe wholy against GA; quite the reverse. Yes, there appears to be substantial opposition to the IMCR in Europe. No doubt some of this is born from the different airspace regulation (no IFR outside of controlled airspace). Ditching the IMCR in the belief that this will secure some sort of IR (light) for PPL is folly. First, there is no evidence that there will be any weight of opinion in favour of such a move. Secondly, EASA wil not I suspect create something which is significantly non ICAO compliant, so the chances of anything taylor made for PPLs seems to me to be remote and the most that is likely will be some modification of the theoretical knowledge requirement. The practical training requirement has already been modified. It is difficult to believe that two levels of IR (PPL and commercial) will find favour at all.
Dump the IMCR and you risk loosing everything.