In previous postings I was always opposed to trying to save the IMCR not because of it's proven safety benefits to the VFR pilot but because I felt it would detract from an achievable European PPL IR.
I agree. If done in the wrong way, a campaign to save the IMCR might well detract from an achievable European PPL IR. But I don't see why the two campaigns, if carried out constructively and reasonably, could not work side by side.
Both you and IO540 read a malicious intent into the issue that is absent in reality. EASA is overstretched and underfunded, and wants the simplest and quickest possible solution to any problem consistent with what it believes (sometimes mistakenly) is safety. In the case of FCL, the simplest and quickest solution was transposing JAR-FCL. But the issue of the gold-plated IR was highlighted in FCL.001, and so we got FCL.008 to deal with it. A source close to EASA suggested to me that without the complications of the IMC rating rant and the enroute IR proposals, this would be done and dusted by now. But it's not, and now there's a real possibility that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, because EASA doesn't have the time and attention to deal with it properly.
The NPA, when it finally emerges, will be assessed against AOPA's declared policy.
As far as I can read, AOPA UK policy is:
1) Support for the concept of an EASA part FCL/ICAO level IR with proportionate theoretical knowledge requirements.
2) Opposition to any future instrument qualification which does not include approach privileges.
3) Insistence upon the retention of UK IMCR privileges within UK airspace
4) Recommendation for the benefits of the UK IMCR be clearly explained to the rest of the EC
Provided 2 (I wonder who pushed for that one
) is not allowed to eclipse 1, and you don't expect 3 to be part of the FCL.008 NPA, I can't see a problem.