I'll repeat my earlier point. What is ATC supposed to do with someone who reaches the IAF (or FAF) expecting to be VMC who isn't? Presumably push them into the Missed Approach?
The way I understand the EIR concept is that an arrival is to be made VFR in VMC. Is it not logical to expect that if a pilot is permitted to get into and fly within IMC, that he/she cannot, at a suitable time, organise a descent to return to VMC? It suggests a little extra planning would be required, which realistically isn't too far from what IMCR or VFR only pilots are doing already. Should the met forecast not agree with the limitations of our ratings we don't fly the route or flight, or we do something else.
If the weather is different from the met office fairy tale then of course a diversion to an aerodrome maintaining VMC would be sensible. I agree that allowing an EIR to descend to 2500' or whatever to 'go missed' is silly, pointless and dangerous. The EIR NPA caveat of having an alternate field planned that is VMC should be mandatory (it probably already is banter away!) in this sense. Perhaps even to the extent that the weather minima must be VMC for the hour prior to landing +1. I was going to suggest CAVOK but enforcing this would render the EIR useless in general.
I'm sure there are very few of us actually supporting it, but the EIR seems inevitable; recent debates are on how this rating could work rather than fighting against it.