Many of the €urocrats don't actually understand microlighting, particularly flex-wing
Let's face it, 99.5% of EASA doesn't understand
any aspect of aviation, being merely self-seeking bureaucrats or (even worse) lawyers
. You only have to read the CRD on Part-FCL to realise that there is no conception within EASA of the effect on the European aviation industry of their fundamentally flawed legislation. The crass naivety of many of the responses would be hilarious were it not so dangerous.
Unfortunately, 99.9% of the of the EC and the European Parliament is in the same position. It is important to realise that duplicity and dishonesty is the daily diet of these morons and any assurances that 'the IMCr will be safe' or 'there will be a bilateral agreement on licensing' are worth the square root of f*%& all. MEPs will vote as their political groupings dictate, ignoring any representations from their constituents; to do otherwise would threaten their chances of a better seat on the gravy train. Sure, there will be a (vanishingly small) principled minority who will vote with their conscience, but not enough to make a real difference.
We are all being royally screwed, just like the fishermen and the farmers before us, and the pity is that, like them, we have no
effective support in Westminster and, therefore, there is nothing whatever we can do about it. Talk of a 'nuclear option' is stirring enough but, in reality, is just talk. The UK has relatively little influence in Europe, despite what the politicians would have us believe and , in time, we may realise that we have been conned; but probably too late to do anything about it.
The vast majority of the UK flight training industry (and, in particular, the current 'registered facilities'), has no conception of the tidal wave of bureacracy (and cost) that is bearing down on it. There are currently close to 400 'registered facilities' in the UK - I'd be surprised if there are more than half that number by this time in 2015.