If this is really is the case then nobody has properly explained why it was rejected and thrown out the window by EASA.
It is really the case.
In previous debates we always liked to point out not a single pilot has ever been killed whilst exercising the privileges of an IMC rating. Even the CAA said so!
After a huge amount of research doubtless by the most ardent detractors someone came up with one possible and highly debatable example! I cant even recall the circumstances and it was really clutching at straws.
By any definition that is a remarkable standard, especially compared with the number of pilots killing themselves every year in instrument conditions with ICAO IRs.
The explanation is actually quite simple. EASA was intended to unify standards. The IMCr was a unique British rating and didnt fit well into this model. National pride was a huge factor - the German's had no interest in adopting a peculiarly British rating, that they didnt understand anyway. Then there was the problem of it being sub ICAO - EASA doesnt really understand anything that is sub ICAO. Then there was the problem of our airspace structure being very different from the rest of Europe. Only we define all our airways (well almost all) as class A. The there was the problem that this thread illustrates so well of those pontificating on matters about which at best they knew nothing, and at worst had very different motives. I could go on.
Are these proper reasons - in some cases yes, in some cases certainly not. The missed opportunity was to find a formula that took the best of the IMCr and integrated this into the best of EASA - the EIR was not that formula, abolishing the IMCr was not it, and the proposed IR is not it.