OK, so to be absolutely clear, the bit that says "Pilots of aircraft....which are 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 shall comply with this Regulation" is already EU law. The only acceptable option, therefore, would seem to be for Part-FCL to recognise a third country licence (any third country licence) as equivalent to an EASA licence or to provide a method of conversion that does not involve anything more than a paperwork exercise. Why do I have this vision of Satan on ice skates?
What happened is exactly what any crafty politician would do.
They drafted a "Basic Regulation" which was vague on all the essential points, and played to all the right prejudices.
Obviously, when you get a statement like
ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community shall comply with this Regulation there is no way anybody will vote against it. It would be like arguing that convicted paedos should have greater access to children than at present. The alternative would be an admission that foreign reg planes can do as they please, which nobody would have voted for (but which is untrue, but almost nobody outside aviation knows that).
Bear in mind that 99% of the people voting don't know what they are voting on anyway. This is not the USA, where a large chunk of the legislature have PPLs. Most people who go into politics in Europe today are just people who failed in business or personal life and have big chips on their shoulders. A few are dreamers who want to fix the world but most of those types are just dumb.
You get a microcosm of this if you go to your local planning committee meeting. You get 11 people of whom at least 9 are totally clue-less and cannot even read a drawing of the garage which somebody wants to build. The meeting is dominated by 2 or at most 3 people, who have done deals outside the room on all the major projects, already.
Just watch that EU EASA video and the brainless shoe-licking questions from some of the MEPs.
What 99% of the MEPs who voted for the BR did not know is that the European CAAs already have plenty of power over foreign regs. They already ban them from doing any paid work (unless on an AOC) and they screw them around on stuff like getting training, foreign checkrides, etc. They can ground them if they are found dangerous (like an engine about to fall off a 747 at LHR). But if you draft things as above, you play to the prejudices of the MEPs, most of whom are self professed European intellectuals who equate America with John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and all the other cowboys, and of course we can't have those types in Europe. Especially in aviation, where the magic word "safety" so effectively squashes opposition from anybody who hasn't got a clue about the issues (which is at least 99% of those voting).
The stupidity of all this is in why didn't EASA/EU produce an FAA-like IR first, left it for a year or two, and see what the takeup is. The takeup would have been very substantial among all newcomers to the IFR scene. Then say 5 years later, they could have started screwing around with the N-reg scene.