So far only Fuji (Post 16) has suggested anything, unfortunately his suggestion
is very much like the idea for an "Instrument Weather Rating" of a couple of
years ago - rejected because it gave full IR privileges on a sub-ICAO IR.
Thank you - but I don't support the idea of a sub ICAO IR, nor did I say otherwise.
That said even ICAO is not quite what it seems - have a look at the various ICAO licenses for which exemptions have been filed - they are ICAO licenses, well to all intense purposes, or are they?
The variation I proposes was to distinguish between a commercial rating and a private rating in much the same way the distinction exists between a private pilot's license and a commercial pilot's license - both ICAO licenses. The private IR would, as Bookworm suggests, create a license designed to meet the training needs of a pilot unable to fund the cost of a commercial license or the additional time to learn a deal of theory that is irrelevant to private operations. The license would never the less be ICAO compliant.
Lest we forget over 50% of private pilots in the US have an IR, less than 5% of EASA private pilots have an IR. The goal should be to achieve at least the same percentage of IR rated pilots in Europe because we know it makes for safer pilots. There is nothing in the current proposals likely to achieve this. If the IMCr is lost in the UK it will only make matters worse.
If I had just one wish, it would be that the bureaucrats learn the lessons of history; if the IR embodies bloated theoretical content that is both costly and impractically difficult to access and if the training is not widely available then the up take will be almost zero.