I'm all for abolishing DST, but I'm not sure which one I'd choose, both have trade offs.

Um, no? Using standard time in summer (assuming northern hemisphere) means that the time will be earlier when the sun goes up and under. So it will be darker at 9 PM and easier to put your children to bed. They may get up earlier though.

The early rising part of the population would love to pull that off, just like it actually happened for centuries now. The problem is that late rising part of the population has never disappeared and does have a voice. Late risers can't do anything with people collectively deciding to open work time at 7 or whatever. But they can and will voice their opinion when a public discussion about time zone will inevitably arise. Surprise, surprise, late risers exist, and they are also human.

PS: by late risers I of course mean people with shifted circadian clock, and not "lazy" people, like they are sometimes presented.

I am a late riser and am very strongly in favour of permanent standard time.

Also anyone living at higher latitudes won't be thrilled by having the sun up even earlier. I don't live that high up compared to quite a lot of people in Europe, and during summer the sun already starts shining from below the horizon at 3 in the morning

I feel like, at higher latitudes, it should matter less?

Whether sunrise is at 3am or 4am, you still basically need to have a way to sleep with unreasonable amounts of sunlight (eg 18-20 hour days).

At lower latitudes, summer time makes more sense because the difference between a 5am and 6am sunrise goes from "too early" to "manageable". Same goes for 9am being too late compared to 8am in the winter for example.

At higher latitudes, you have to accommodate no matter what.

At lower latitudes, 1h makes a difference.