Yes, we have done this one to death here, in multiple threads.
The words "operator" and "resident" are unclear and would need a precedent set by the courts - in each EU state (because any criminal action, or insurance related litigation, would be done locally). There is a lot of complexity around this, and a lot of fairly obvious avoidance tactics.
Like I said before, ICAO allows any member state to not recognise the use of foreign licenses (and medicals) by a "national" (meaning "citizen").
EASA's use of the word "resident" is pushing things a bit beyond what ICAO allows on FCL and medicals.
OTOH, each country has obviously got total jurisdiction within its borders (if you overfly Iran they might shoot at you, etc, and you can't exactly phone up ICAO and demand that somebody goes to Tehran and beats up the Ayatollah) and maybe EASA is relying on that "3rd world" option. The EU has the theoretical power to force each member state to implement any measure whatsoever.
However, from comms I have had with a real lawyer working in this field, it appears quite possible that the EASA committee which drafted this stuff never got legal advice. I find this staggering... but it would explain why we are arguing about this totally opaque bollox.
If this garbage was really drawn up by non-legal people, they must be rolling on the floor laughing at us debating it ad nauseum, and seriously contemplating going to do the JAA IRs en masse.