BillieBob I think your view is rather optimistic. Annex two was established as a holding pattern because EASA had more than enough on its plate and did not have the time or inclination to get embroiled in the hugely diverse regulatory systems in which amateur built aircraft, microlights and some Vintage types operate throughout the EU states. The original intention was to come back and fix it later, to introduce an EU wide regulatory regime, and if the legal framework means that the Commission has to authorise that then that is what will happen, I do not profess to be any kind of expert on how they cross the T's and dot the i's. Whether this actually happens is anybody's guess, over the years there have been rumours that it is about to happen, and rumours that these aircraft will forever be looked after by the NAAs; truth is it is still not clear but I get the vibe that the latter is currently the considered best guess.
Peter (Robin DR200 series?) whether or not LAA can 'adopt' a type for Permit is, unfortunately, not LAA's decision. The CAA/EASA take the view, and I suspect that it is also tied in with ICAO, that if an aircraft is able to have a Certificate of Airworthiness, then it has to have one and cannot be orphaned off to a Permit to Fly. The measure of CoA acceptability is whether there is a Type Certificate Holder, and the Robin 200 series and up Type Certificates are still extant. Unless Apex (or Finch, not sure who legally owns them now) decide to relinquish the TC, as Apex did with DR1050 and D140 a while back, they will have to stay on CoA.
The Stampe situation is that there is no TC holder so the CAA wrote to Stampe owners giving them the option of staying on CoA if somebody came forward to effectively take on the TC responsibilities in what is called a Type Responsibility Agreement (TRA), or go onto PtF. Though the vast majority wants to come onto PtF, a handful who operate the aircraft on Public Transport CoA for pleasure flights etc, want to stay on CoA and somebody has said they will take on a TRA. Unfair as it seems, the majority decision is not what counts, if just one wanted to stay on CoA and somebody takes on the TRA then CAA will make them all stay on CoA.
A number of deadlines for the potential TRA to be put in place have passed and CAA has extended the deadline yet further. I believe our Engineering guys have been asking questions in the appropriate places and hopefully this issue will finally be resolved sooner rather than later and the majority view of being transferred to PtF will prevail.
The only option for getting what is a CoA type onto a Permit is if you imported an example that was of dubious parentage. For instance, if you had a Piper Cub that had operated abroad but not on a CoA (in France on a CNRA, a restricted CoA that is used for homebuilts and some non conforming factory builts, for example), such that parts traceability, history etc was severely compromised, you could apply to LAA to see if it could be accepted for a Permit. LAA Engineering would make representation to the CAA if it supported the view that to put it onto a UK CoA would not be a viable option. It should be noted though that this is a last ditch effort and if CAA said no then you have a major rebuild on you hands to get the aircraft back to UK CoA status, and we all know how much of a ball ache that might be.