Part of the problem we have is a misunderstanding eg what the IMCR is
True.
Do the Europeans who dont have that rating want such poorly trained pilots
.. but there you have it, if you had said "who perceive such poorly trained pilots", I would have agreed with you. The evidence is however poorly trained you or they think they are the evidence does not support you. I just dont understand how intelligent people can so readily ignore the evidence. I recall being told many years a go when a case comes to trial only three things really matter - EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.
Show me the evidence that IMCr pilots are unsafe and I will agree with you. Put the IMCr on trial that it is unsafe and I believe you would fail. Is the training standard for the IR higher - yes of course, but for all sorts of reasons that does not mean it is safer.
Let me ask you this - how many pilots with an IMC have you flown with Pace?
The second issue is do away with the IMCr and what do you think will happen to flight safety? Do you really believe the IR will become more accessable - if it does all well and good but the evidence is not persuasive. Do you think the EIR is an realistic alternative - I dont. Please read the French study because it is a reasonable piece of evidence of what happens when you effectively prevent pilots gaining an instrument qualification. Please consider the history of the IMCr and why it was originally introduced against a great deal of opposition, just as now. The opponents were wrong.