What good is an aviation safety office when a large percentage of license holders and airplanes are not under its regulation?
Your assertion is based on the premise that everything in Europe must be regulated, and must be regulated by Europe. That is the stated position of e.g. Seebohm.
Given the international nature of aviation, and the virtually universal membership of ICAO which has incredibly detailed procedures for all of this stuff, there is no objective basis for doing it all again in European law.
Legislation should be evidence-based (otherwise it is totally frivolous and no more than job creation) which in aviation largely means safety data, and for private GA there is absolutely zero evidence that might support the extra layer of European regulation.
The gun analogy is not valid, but would be if there was "ICAO for guns, with local enforcement" which is what ICAO is for aviation.
Of course it will be implemented and enforced
It would be interesting how they do that; specifically the "operator residence" part. Will Germany be issuing a certificate of "operator non EU residence"? 
I think it will work via FUD which is how most aviation regs work. It is FUD that makes us pilots police ourselves so fiercely. It was FUD that got me to go through this totally bizzare paperwork exercise.
In Germany, and to a lesser extent France, there may be local initiatives to do the usual random hits (again, to spread FUD) but I can't see anybody else bothering with ramp checks and the resulting messy procedures that try to establish operator EU residence.
The indications I have from people in the UK CAA is that they don't want to touch this stuff with a 20ft bargepole. It flies in the face of how law is drafted in the UK (versus how it is usually drafted in Europe, which is full of lawmaking that ranges from meaningless to completely mad). In the UK, that part of EASA FCL would be thrown out as impossible to draft something that one could enforce.
How the hell do you establish operator EU residence, except in the most obvious cases? The "most emotionally objectionable" (to the likes of Seebohm) portion of GA - bizjets on Part 91 - will mostly escape because they can so easily set up non EU operating structures.
Your assertion is based on the premise that everything in Europe must be regulated, and must be regulated by Europe.
Aviation is regulated everywhere and there is a consensus that it requires regulation. The fact that it has always been easy to escape the European aviation regulation is one reason why our regulation has so many deficiencies.
Given the international nature of aviation, and the virtually universal membership of ICAO which has incredibly detailed procedures for all of this stuff, there is no objective basis for doing it all again in European law.
ICAO is an international treaty which as such can never be enforceable law, it therefore requires an implementation in law. The US do that as FAR/AIM which are also complex and noncompliant in many ways. The Europeans now try to do it on a EU level which is a good thing because aircraft actually do roam inside the union all the time.
If EASA force all FAA license holders to get an EASA license (just like the FAA forces all EASA license holders to get an FAA license to fly in the US), then this is a logical and sensible step. Provided they provide for an easy transition that doesn't cost a lot of time and/or money. Instead of opposing the EASA license requirement, FAA licensed pilots should fight for a sensible conversion route.
The US will recognise foreign licence under 61.75 and give you a US licence with a simple application and a basic checkride. And if you pass one exam they will also recognise your IR. and with that you can fly N reg aircraft. Effectively they rely on other ICAO members doing their job. Why can't EASA do the same?
Let’s see.
Your administration acts in a way that make 70% (my guess) of GA give up or move to the to the UL/VLA segment during a decade. As a result accidents and incidents (runway- and airspace infringements) increase due to the shift from light pistons to UL and VLA.
After a while you also come to realize that due to the way you've ruled your kingdom, pilots that want to use their plane like a business tool or personal airliner have fled and are now operating on another register.
Then, when the only action you can think of to counter this mess is to make it illegal for those pilots to continue to operate on under the other regime, IMHO you don’t deserve to have the fleet under your regulation.
Well said.
You have to admit they are trying to improve. FCL.008 and the potential easy conversion route.
