And I am saying that an en-route qualification isn't fantasy. It isn't fantasy because an entire country (Australia) seems to know something you don't. It isn't fantasy because pilots fly VMC on top and arrive VFR.
What they may know but I don't: how do they ensure that there will be a hole in the clouds at their destination? Perhaps that works in Australia, I don't think it would in typical UK weather.
It isn't fantasy because IR and IMCr rated pilots fly enroute IMC today to arrive at VFR-only airports the whole time.
I can speak only for myself, but I always have an alternate with an instrument approach to enable a safe descent through cloud if the cloudbase is below MSA. Either I land at my alternate, or (if the weather is good enough) rely on visual positioning from the instrument approach to the VFR-only destination.
How often do they have to divert to their IFR alternate? Rarely. And an EIR holder would need a sufficiently good forecast to turn that rarely into a very rarely indeed; just as, amazingly, VFR pilots manage to fly in marginal VFR and very rarely need an instrument approach.
I think that the difference between "rarely" (but I can safely do it) to "very rarely" (because I'm not qualified to do it) is vast.
We're talking PPLs in typical SEPs and UK airspace, cruising between 2000 feet and about FL060. In the UK, if you are IMC (or VMC on top of overcast) at that sort of height then you generally can't say with any certainty that cloud base at your destination will be above MSA.
The thing is: if the cloud base is definitely going to be 2000 feet or more, you don't need en-route IMC as you can fly VFR below. If the forecast cloud base is less than 2000 feet, then there's a significant risk that it may turn out to be less 1000 feet, which makes a descent through IMC without an instrument approach risky.
Clearly we're not going to agree on this, but I don't think an en-route only IMC qualification is any practical use, and worse: it encourages dangerous practices.