421C, there is nothing to stop the UK filing differences with EASA. However, there are other fish to fry. One is actually having the IMCr recognised in other EASA states if possible.
I'll rise to your bait - your suggestion that an EIR is preferable to nothing between the PPL and the IR. I disagree. I think it will encourage people to fly in conditions for which they are neither qualified nor trained and lead to a false sense of security. I can't remember ever being flying in a spamcan over the sort of distances they fly when the weather has been VFR for departure, down to less than 2000' enroute and "virtually certain" VFR at destination (or alternate).
And with no approach privileges, how are people supposed to let down? Just descend through the murk and hope?
The "virtual certainty" of VFR weather at destination will (possibly) occur on a maximum of two days per annum in the UK. The rest of the time, "virtual certainty" in the accuracy of TAFs and their timing is a falsehood that will sucker in far too many people. I can just hear the barristers discussing "virtual certainty" and the likelihood of weather forecasters getting it right to that extent in the courtroom wherein is held the Subsequent Inquiry.
Sorry - but not only is it a chocolate teapot, it's a thoroughly dangerous one. I speak as someone whose first training after PPL was an IMCr, holds an IR with rather a lot of hours in elephant's backside conditions (=grey and ****ty) and now also instructs people in how to hold it all together when things go pear-shaped. As a fairly new PPL/IMCr, I also managed to fly inadvertently into IMC Wx - and was bloody glad of the training I had received that got me out of it without turning inverted and throwing a rather nice Arrow at the ground at a higher-than-usual rate of descent. An EIR would not have achieved that.