Article 3 of the Basic Regulation states: "Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL."
Article 1 states: This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. The licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
Article 4(1)(c) states: Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community..
This debate becomes no better informed by selectively quoting bits of the basic law without paying regard to the whole. Once again you fail to do this. I suggest you consider all the provisions of the basic law, but particularly Article 7 and its specific reference to Article 4(1)(c), which is the provision covering third country registered aircraft where the operator is "established or resident" in a Member State and is exactly the point we are all debating. Of course, the use of the word "may" leaves the door open to direct regulation by EASA, I fully accept that. However, looking at the present position there is nothing in the proposed regulations which amounts to such direct regulation and which says to people like IO540: "you must have an EASA IR if you wish to continue using your N reg TB20 to fly IFR in the EU", nothing at all.
In the absence of specific direct regulation of the issue the position remains what it is under ICAO Conventions and treaties (and recognised by our own ANO). If EASA meant to derogate from the treaties etc. it would have to specifically say so. So far, it has not, though it may in the future.