No specific Airbus knowledge .. but several concerned thoughts ..
First, one presumes that the miss is associated with a sensibly planned escape .. which should include prescribed speed control as the procedure evolves. Generally, the concerns are minimal for AEO presuming that the procedure has been planned to account for the OEI case. Speed control, though, is critical to cover the case where one motor ceases to make noise ..
There is no acceleration altitude in missed approach
One still has to reconfigure from the missed to the clean configuration .. not a concern with "normal" climbs to a safe height but will need to be factored in by the ops engineers designing the procedure to keep within engine limitations in nasty tiger country.
a 15 degree max bank angle is used, hence the speed restriction
The reason being that, for a given bank angle, turn radius is tied to speed. If you want to miss that hill, best stick with the speed prescribed for the procedure.
If you're in IMC and by some coincidence you have 180 kts, just put flaps 2, select 160 and off you go
The concern here relates to the apparent fact that the earlier part of the procedure has been varied from plan .. where is the aircraft, right now, with respect to the planned terrain clearance ? Not always quite so simple as reconfiguring on the fly.
If you're VMC, you can obviously judge whether you have sufficient terrain clearance.
Generally a bad gameplan. At the very shallow climb gradients, OEI, eyeball assessment on the fly is pretty well hopeless. It all needs to have been done in the backroom ahead of time.
keeping the speed restrictions is still nice thing to do, so you don't hit a mountain that was not taken into account during procedure design
If the speed restriction wasn't predicated on that nasty mountain, why might it be there ? The chances that a researched escape would miss a major obstacle is low .. mind you, I have seen a few strange things occur with incorrect or misinterpreted data.