If this is really is the case then nobody has properly explained why it was rejected and thrown out the window by EASA.
In my opinion, it was very poorly explained and offered as a 'throughout Europe' option, which put the noses of certain people firmly out of joint.
It will be difficult to plan and execute a flight using the EIR at times. Explaining to an unfamiliar controller than you can accept vectors, but not a STAR and that you may only fly under VFR in the terminal area isn't going to be easy. But if you
can, then why not?
Area forecasts are rarely very specific regarding minimum cloudbase. However, one EIR advocate maintained that only TAFs and METARs were necessary to use the rating safely. So we turned the question over to EASA and asked them to state whether they considered that the current ICAO en-route forecasting criteria were sufficient..... Needless to say, they stated that they were sure that these criteria were entirely adequate. To (mis)-quote Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well they would, wouldn't they?".