Three points.
1. BALPA seem to have changed tack to the degree that they are now, according to their current publications, affirming the strengths of CAP371. Sure, these limitations ARE the maximum, however, should they be used as the rostering maximums, because of the vagaries of schedules, these maximums are rarely actual maxima. Commercially, (and that is not neccesarily a dirty word!), there have to be finite maximum FDPs and, currently, perhaps in order to make the point, BALPA seem to accept that the current CAP371 IS based on scientifically assessed data. Some of us can, however, point to (CAA approved) so called alleviations to CAP371 and these should certainly be addressed by BALPA on the grounds of Flight Safety.
2. A feature of some operations is "flagging out" and I suggest that BALPA would be well-advised to project a much stronger policy against this abberation rather than their tacit approval that can be read into the status quo. This may be a stronger weapon against the taking of commercial advantage by the more unscrupulous operators, who may hide behind the more lax FTL schemes of other (European, even) jurisdictions.
3. Having seen the operation of the Brussels Gravy Train at first hand, (When licece harmonisation was first projected, I was an "expert witness"), I am not a bit surprised that these FTL proposals have been introduced in such an obviously flawed form. I am also confident that they will not survive, simply because, when all the potential dangers are exposed, arse-covering will go into overdrive and the likes of Simpson will retreat so rapidly, you won't see them.