You're being highly disingenuous, or at the very least, dismissing people who actually know what they're talking about when it comes to electrical equipment and electrical theory in favour of some conspiracy that the EU made decisions based on some nefarious need to be "other" rather than adapting to the reality of the European electrical grid.
You're also floating ideas that have been readily disproven as impractical and expensive in this continued anti-EU rant and you're not even internally logically consistent.
There's a reason the EU went with the Type 2 connector. There's a reason you can't just short out L1, L2 and L3 conductors to make trivial single phase converters. There's a reason we use on-board inverters in BEVs and have the supply equipment provide AC line voltage in either 1ph or 3ph flavours. There's a reason that CCS (in both Type 1 and Type 2 guises) is preferred over Chademo.
All of these things have been explained in detail, including the practical and economic reasons, but you still think it's some grand machiavellian scheme by Germany to personally piss off people who bought cars with Type 1 and/or Chademo connectors and that a council fitting tethered Type 2 chargers in a country where Type 2 sockets have been standard in all but a couple of early-adopter cases is some part of the master plan.
Should DC rapid charging be more robust? Absolutely. But the problem of having the charger off-board and needing to appropriately connect, negotiate and charge any DC traction pack is not trivial, especially at high rates of charge.
Would it be nice if all possible AC connectors were supported everywhere? Of course, but we standardised around a connector that had tangible benefits for the EU.
Is it unfortunate that Chademo was not adopted by everyone? No, definitely not. There are benefits to CCS that Chademo could not easily match.
The "solutions" that you propose (everyone has their own HT DC charger at every charge location!) are simply not at all feasible if the goal is better interoperability, lower costs and more robust charging networks. It's also absurdly reinventing the wheel for no good reason when every property in the UK is supplied with AC power.
Maybe we should mandate that all electrical devices are supplied as DC-only and then have all the HT rectification done in-wall so you can plug your TV, computer, fridge etc into it. It would make TVs cheaper! (note: this would be absurdly impractical and expensive, but hey, cheaper TVs!)
In this thread you (and others) clarified some points that I did not understand, and where appropriate I clicked the pretty green tick icon in response. I have been educated on 3 phases, and I came to the view that 1 phase is perfectly adequate. Incidentally, I recall a massive consumer unit in my house when I lived in mainland Europe. I had steps to reach the upper fuses and I saw no tangible benefit, just a lot more gubbins, and plugs that sparked.
I disagree with the focus of your argument because I actually think the current trajectory of faster AC charging is a rabbit hole in waiting: Beyond vanity I see no credible case for having rapid charging installed in every house because cars are not programmed to become emotionally bored when left to charge while their owners rest: Our rest (dinner, sleep, shower, etc.) probably translates into >10 hours for undisturbed car charging. It has been explained to me that drawing on 1 phase to charge a car in the EU would take a long time, but 10 hours is a long time. Some owners of big EVs will cry foul, but if someone can afford a big EV then they can afford a big charger to go with it: The socially more significant priority is the public benefit of rapid charging on-route in the exact same places where we have petrol stations, toilets, and coffee shops (where we are accustomed to stopping ~20 minutes). If charging networks provided a public benefit then nobody would actually need to trickle charge over an hour at destinations because there would be a working rapid within 2 miles.
I disagree with your assertion that DC charging a car is inherently bad, and it strikes me as hypocritical of you to take such a position given your (unspecified) defence of CCS. EV networks have had a decade to maintain working rapid DC charging points near every petrol station, they have failed, and we have let them off the hook by being customers bickering over, or customers confused by, the various charging standards. God forbid any body be divisive enough to release a CCS1 and a CCS2... oh, too late!
Overall though I view arguments over Type 1 or Type 2, and CHAdeMO or CCS1 or CCS2, and GB/T or CHAdeMO-compatible Tesla, as red herrings. I don't really care, except that there needs to be a very good reason to drop a standard that is already in play because interoperability across the network (of which we are all a part) is necessary for advancement, while dividing the network into competing groups disrupts progress. Unlike the seatbelt competition that started in 1959 and ended with Volvo benevolently saving lives in all cars, or the 1980s Betamax/VHS fair market competition, our current EV plug differences are the product of career policy makers and wealthy lobbying groups strategising for their trading bloc's geopolitical influence instead of helping EV buyers cut emissions and save the planet.
We need to stop playing musical chairs and instead maintain a static cohesive network.
BS1363/Schuko compatible garden socket on every home, and a CHAdeMO with contactless payment within 2 miles of every home, would be a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than the incompatible muddle of sparsely distributed broken chargers we currently have. This is not an anti-EU rant: It is instead acknowledgement of the negative consequences of misguided EU policy interventions
Furthermore, there is a very real benefit to adopting and endorsing a global
standard led by volume sales without politicised market protectionism because vehicles cross borders
(even if just for an initial sale). If you travel to geopolitically weaker states today you will observe inside ordinary homes the multitudes of incompatible plugs and sockets spanning centuries of competing standards (often with burned edges and other signs of overheating) because those regions unfortunately sit between the boundaries of geopolitical heavyweights: Those regions reuse old standard and import the widest muddle of new standards for use on their one domestic supply. Following on from the EU's mission (linked above), the EU's achieved differences
will manifest as increased complexity in geopolitically weaker regions for hundreds of years. Designing new standards is blind vanity that inflicts avoidable complexity and economic deprivation on the planet, and who pays to fix that? The UN, the IMF?