EASA could have got rid of N reg by putting something equally or more attractive in place.
Of course, but this has been known to everybody and their dog for much longer than EASA has been around.
JAA officials openly admitted (in presentations etc) that they knew this, and let's face it everybody knows this
But
protectionism rules in Europe, and that's the end of it. JAA never had any legal authority. EASA (via EU directives) does have the authority but they blew it (again, because of protectionism at various levels; not just FCL but certification) and instead brought in a weird vague legal framework which merely increases the FUD element which for all the preceeding years has been the principal lid on the expansion of the N-reg community.
FUD does work pretty well and costs very little. There is a blog out there of a Bonanza owner who went N-reg and started on the FAA IR, then read about the 2005 DfT proposal and got scared and blew away some 4 or 5 digits to go back on G and gave up on the IR. He could have had 7 years of priceless IFR mission capability and enhanced safety, with at least 2 more to go....
EASA (as every other EU agency) is carefully set up to resist traditional industry pressure (which is how they managed to bring in crap like ROHS, despite protests from multi billion electronics manufacturers) but it remains vulnerable lower down because all the committees are stuffed with the same people who run national CAAs and training operations. That's why I am pessimistic on the good stuff; it is vulnerable to sufficient gold plating to make it all but worthless.