[dietlbomb]

If we were to eliminate the biannual clock changes, why would it matter which time base we switch to? Organizations would surely set their business hours appropriately for either choice. Does it matter what the number on the clock is during sunset? If you prefer permanent DST, why not just wake up an hour earlier (obligations permitting)?

Me, if we were to eliminate the clock changes, I'd pick permanent standard time, because it more closely matches astronomical time.

The question of whether to retain the biannual clock changes is another issue. (I'm for the switches, because it's the least painful way to coordinate everyone getting up earlier in the summer.)

[rectang]

> If you prefer permanent DST, why not just wake up an hour earlier (obligations permitting)?

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

Me and the other peasants would eat cake if we had some.

Only the fortunate few get to set their hours.

[_ph_]

But society sets the hours based on the majority of the population. Permanent DST would trigger a time shift so that the effects are compensated.

[dsego]

Depends on the time zone. For some countries in the CET, the summer time actually is closer to the real local time than the standard time. In a year or two the EU countries will have to choose whether to stay on standard or DST. But the net result is just chopping up CET into distinct time zones. Slovenia seems to be in favor of standard time, Croatia prefers DST because more profit in tourism. You can drive through one country in an hour or two, and the other in another few hours, yet they will be 1 hour apart in time. Bonkers if you ask me.

[_ph_]

No, you got it wrong. The meridian of the CET is at the east German border. Only places east of it are in the "negative" time zone, less than one hour in difference. To the west, we have France already at +1, and Spain even at +2.

Permanent DST would put Poland at 0 to +1, Germany at +1 to +2, France at +2..+3.