Pace - I think you will find EASA has banned en route emergencies.
No, as I understand it, the theory is you stay on top (in IMC or not as the case might be) and ONLY descend at your destination if they have stayed visual as predicted by the TAFs. If not, you divert to your alternate, assuming that has stayed visual, and if not you divert to somewhere that is, and if not you declare an emergency.
If you have a problem en route you divert to where ever is visual and if there is no where visual you declare an emergency.
The theory is emergencies will almost never happen, and if they do there will be somewhere to go visual, and the TAFs are almost never wrong but if they are your alternate will be good.
To be fair the theory probably stands up most of the time - it is rare for the destination and two alternates to both predict a visual approach and all three to fall below visual. The theory doesnt of course take into account an en route emergency but given most EIR holders will be flying singles I guess the most likely emergency will be an engine failure in which event you are coming down whatever (and would be just with a PPL with on top rights) - just better hope you have a chute.
In your case EASA would probably say you chose your alternates unwisely!