I think there's a clear analogy with the instrument training given to PPLs
Maybe they are making an analogy, but there is still no rational argument as to
why. I have only skimmed the EASA document, but they have advanced no rational explanation for this and I can only assume that it is to placate the airline mob who do not want anyone flying full IFR without the full IR.
It seems to make no sense to me to allow a pilot to legally fly IFR for hundreds of miles and then for him to have to rely on limited emergency training to get down when he finds unexpected IMC at his destination. This seems a bit like training a pilot to fly but not to land!
Of course if you add approaches to the EIR you have a full IR. I suspect that EASA could not bring themselves to accept the IMCR and have ended up with something which though undoubtedly useful to many is also possibly fatally deficient in the key area of approaches.