European Parliament Set To End EU-Wide Daylight Saving (dw.com)

The European Commission and European Parliament are set to end daylight saving time in 2021, at least in some states. "Now that the lead committee on transport and tourism has given its blessing, by a large majority, EU lawmakers could vote on the change by the end of March," reports Deutsche Welle. "After that, all 28 member states will need to rubberstamp the ruling." From the report: European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's brash statement back in September, asserting that the amendment would go ahead quickly, has proven to be premature. At the time, Juncker was referring to an overwhelming response to an EU online survey, where an unexpected 80 percent of respondents said the practice of changing the clock twice a year was outdated. But the survey was not representative, with 3 million of the 4.6 million votes coming from Germany. This led to diplomats from smaller EU countries complaining behind closed doors that the European Commission wanted to impose German will on the other states through sheer populism.

Juncker was keen to abolish the twice-yearly time shift by spring, probably so he could claim, before European Parliament elections in May, that the will of the people had been reflected. But some member states demanded a transitional period up to 2021. Good things come to those who wait, it seems, especially in the EU. As a compromise for the repeal of the "Directive on summer time," spring or autumn in 2020 has now been suggested. This means that by June EU states will have to draw the lines for each time zone and decide what time those places will set their clocks to, and when. Some EU members -- including the United Kingdom, Greece and Portugal -- want to stick to the old rules and continue to switch between summer and winter time through the year. Cyprus, the Netherlands, Denmark, France and Ireland have not decided. The other states want to get rid of the twice-yearly change, but still have to decide which time will apply.

Comments

Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

"where an unexpected 80 percent of respondents said the practice of changing the clock twice a year was outdated" = Roughly the same amount of American voters support Net Neutrality.

Re: Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the masses are fucking ignorant. Film at 11.

Re:Smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Roughly the same amount of American voters support Net Neutrality.

Yeah, but they were German Americans.

If Americans want net neutrality, they will vote for it during the elections. If they keep voting for the same old crap, it only means they really don't want or care about net neutrality.

Oh, and same for DST.

I hope Europe sticks with summer time. Evening sun is better for the psyche than morning sun, which you won't get anyway in the northern parts, so put a little bias towards the afternoon so the entire day isn't wasted at work and school

But the survey was not representative

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you don't tell anyone. I haven't heard a damn thing on TV about the survey until it was over. Did I have to subscribe to Junky's fsckin newsletter to be informed?

Re: But the survey was not representative

[Anonymous Coward]

But we even discussed the poll here!
https://m.slashdot.org/story/343092

I know it's common to not read TFA, but there was a link to the poll in TFS!

Thank goodness

[bobstreo]

for constantly updated tzdata files.

Otherwise, how would you know what time it is someplace else? Unless you use UTC...

Re: Thank goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

Swatch time

UK

[Anne Thwacks]

I am pretty sure a majority in the UK wand to get rid of changing the clocks. However none of us were told about this survey.

Now we have a situation where the Brexiteer propaganda machine has won a huge victory because "The EU" is imposing on us what we actually want, so of course we don't want it. (We are totally committed to cutting of our noses to spite our faces as well as shooting our selves in the foot).

It is the British way!

Re:UK

[DamonHD]

I found out about the survey (I am in the UK) and voted to end DST... when the server stayed up long enough to accept my vote. (It was crashing under the weight of people trying to use it, not being DDoSed, it seems.)

Rgds

Damon

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Scotland and N. Ireland have opposed the abolition of the time change in the past, so it's hard to claim most of the UK wants this. Maybe a positive of Brexit will be the departure of Scotland and then the rUK might be more free to change.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont u think the UK will be long out of the EU by the time this change takes effect? If so, I figure thats a pretty good reason not to go asking the UK population what they think.

Re:UK

[Mittengrabber]

For shame! It would mean the end of BST - BRITISH Summer Time, BRITISH! And GMT - GREENWICH Mean Time! Them EUs want to take away our BRITISH GREENWICH! As someone who was never a great fan of BST, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine another expansion of that abbreviation.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

GMT is so outdated, UTC is the new thing now ...

Re:UK

[mccalli]

We were, and I voted in it. I voted to end it.

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_population

Re:UK

[thegarbz]

Yeah the UK suffers horribly under the EU. How can May and her fellow politicians score a win for the people when that damn EU keeps doing it first. I especially like how May declared the abolishion of mobile roaming fees as one of *her* successes.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

"However none of us were told about this survey. "

C'm on. If you have time to slack around on /. you can as well scan the news from time to time. Quality news, not the Sun. Those will fill you with fake news.

Oh, wait, it /was/ on Slashdot [1].

Sitting there and "not having been told" is not the way to participate in a democracy. Sheesh.

  [1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

Re:UK

[AmiMoJo]

The EU is under-represented in the UK. In other countries you see it everywhere - anything funded by EU money has an EU flag on it, and institutions are proud to mention that they are doing stuff with or funded by the EU. The media is much more engaged with what the EU is doing and doesn't consider it a separate organization, it's another democratic institution along side the national government.

That's why the UK was so vulnerable to brexit. People really thought it was like some kind of club they could just cancel their membership of and walk away. Someone guy on the TV was talking about how upset he was because he thought that a few days after the vote the UK would be out - he didn't even read the official Leave campaign's leaflet apparently.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is under-represented in the UK. In other countries you see it everywhere - anything funded by EU money has an EU flag on it, and institutions are proud to mention that they are doing stuff with or funded by the EU. The media is much more engaged with what the EU is doing and doesn't consider it a separate organization, it's another democratic institution along side the national government.

That's why the UK was so vulnerable to brexit. People really thought it was like some kind of club they could just cancel their membership of and walk away. Someone guy on the TV was talking about how upset he was because he thought that a few days after the vote the UK would be out - he didn't even read the official Leave campaign's leaflet apparently.

And that kind of arrogant attitude from EU is exactly the reason for brexit. First you take 13 bil GBP as a membership fee, then in thy holy graciousness and benevolence deign to give 4 bil GBP of that back as a funding for various projects, and then expect the Brits to kiss the ground in front of thy holy feet in slavering gratitude, and pretty much tattoo a "funded by EU" logo on the forehead of anyone who came within 10 kilometers of that money.

Well, guess what, that doesn't seem to sit very well with the Brits, and I find it really hard to blame them.

Citation for numbers: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Re:UK

[AmiMoJo]

I hope not.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure it doesn't sit well with people who can't see the broader implications. The EU is primarily a union for free trading between its member states.
That contribution to the EU bought the Brits full access to the EU trade club where they can import required goods and services and sell their own products and services to all the other states without painfully having to negotiate trade agreements over all the many little things that they required. This is good for their export economy, good for capitalism there. And given the somewhat socialistic structure which you can see as 'forced trickle down' the internal taxes collected are also good for the people who live there, because those finance social programs.

For the same reason larger economies like Germany and France want to keep the EU together, despite all the money they have to funnel into 'socialistic' EU programs. Thanks to all the money their economy is making from the Single Market, it is still beneficial for them to carry the weaker economies.
The real sad thing about this is that some of those economically weaker states don't really use the money to catch up but to feed their corrupt nepotism that has existed there for a longer time.

So if you want to take a real balanced view on this issue you also have to consider what kind of export and import costs are saved. If the costs saved are higher than the membership costs it would factually be a net benefit for the UK. If the costs are too high for what they get in return maybe they're right about things not sitting well with them. And if you think about self reliance of the UK being a realistic thing for the UK, maybe think again. Even historically, when there were fewer people and the needs were lower, the UK has relied on trade with continental Europe and their colonies for the last couple of centuries.
I haven't done the math, so I can't give you the answer to this. But given what is currently going on around Brexit politics it does appear like the government in the UK hasn't done the math either before they had their people vote on the issue.

Re:UK

[thegarbz]

It was crashing under the weight of incompetence. Seriously the target audience of the survey was 700million people and it couldn't cope with 4 million spread out over quite a long period. No doubt the survey itself was running on a TI-84 with a serial link to a modem.

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation for numbers: https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

Your cited numbers are about as accurate as the claims about the Green New Deal by GOP stalwarts or Trump's raving over illegal voters in the millions.

Besides, California pays more than that yearly into the federal coffers and nobody gave them a vote.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure it doesn't sit well with people who can't see the broader implications.

How do you know they can't see them? Because they have a different opinion than you and clearly if they have an opinion different than yours, they mustn't understand? Only you and those who think like you are truly enlightened and anyone who thinks otherwise must be a fool? There's no way that they do understand the broader implications and just don't think it's worth it?

You do realize what an arrogant ass you are being, right? Things like that are really why I dislike the left. They think they're the only ones that understand things, even though by and large the live their entire lives in cities where everybody agrees with them listening to media that agrees with them associating only with people that agree with them, mocking anybody who disagrees with them while never actually listening to those peoples arguments. Get out of your bubble and you might find out that people who don't agree with you have some valid points too.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure it doesn't sit well with people who can't see the broader implications. The EU is primarily a union for free trading between its member states.

No, that was European Economic Community, may she reast in peace. In essence a free trade treaty between free European states. European Union on the other hand is a cancerous growth that replaced it in 2009, a fascist, centralised governance body that tries to subjugate the sovereign states and to turn them into just one level of local governance.

The free trade part is completely separate from the EU and it's called EFTA - so you can be in the free trade zone and yet, not be in EU, like Norway for example. Of course the eurocrates didn't even put that on the table - they wanted to use the "we'll kick you out of free trade zone too if you dare leave the EU" threat to make people vote stay. Guess that backfired rather spectacularly, didn't it?

That contribution to the EU bought the Brits full access to the EU trade club where they can import required goods and services and sell their own products and services to all the other states without painfully having to negotiate trade agreements over all the many little things that they required. This is good for their export economy, good for capitalism there. And given the somewhat socialistic structure which you can see as 'forced trickle down' the internal taxes collected are also good for the people who live there, because those finance social programs.

And that is yet another example of EU arrogance. Free trade agreement between EU and GB isn't a favour that GB "should of course pay for", it's a mutually beneficial thing that both sides profit from, and shouldn't have to be "paid for" as if it cost EU anything. But of course now that GB is leaving, the EU has to try to crush GB economy, to send a message "See? that's what happens when you leave" to other member states who might be thinking of this. The EU is going to suffer because of that trade war just as Brits will, but the eurocrates are more than willing to pay that price, screw their own citizens.

For the same reason larger economies like Germany and France want to keep the EU together, despite all the money they have to funnel into 'socialistic' EU programs. Thanks to all the money their economy is making from the Single Market, it is still beneficial for them to carry the weaker economies.

No, Germany and France want to keep EU together because they pretty much get to rule it - the way votes are distributed in EU, when they agree on something it takes a grand coalition of pretty much freaking everyone else to stop that, and good luck with that, all GER and FR have to do is buy two or three smaller states with some of their own money to vote as they want. That way they get to make laws that prop up their own industries and impose them on the rest of EU. A bit of money is more than a fair price for that. Also, that's why Eastern Europe is most opposed to Brexit, while western kind of pays lip service to them staying but they are secretly glad to see them go - it will slant the situation even more in their favour. And that's why Eastern Europe is very eager for EU to expand while GER and FR are not exactly so.

The real sad thing about this is that some of those economically weaker states don't really use the money to catch up but to feed their corrupt nepotism that has existed there for a longer time.

So if you want to take a real balanced view on this issue you also have to consider what kind of export and import costs are saved. If the costs saved are higher than the membership costs it would factually be a net benefit for the UK. If the costs are too high for what they get in return maybe they're right about things not sitting well with them. And if you think about self reliance of the UK being a realistic thing for the UK, maybe think again. Even historically, when there were fewer people and the n

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore that pay about how Brussels has to give your "sovereign" nation permission to set a time zone. No don, this is a prefect example of why you to should support Brexit.

Re:UK

[dave420]

You don't seem to be aware of the massive benefits to business (and therefor the government via taxes) from being in the EU. It's not just a matter of working out if payments to the EU are greater than payments from the EU. And that doesn't even factor in the number of EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS, or the EU immigrants who are paying more taxes than they get from the government, etc. etc. etc.

You're proving their point - people who don't understand the EU being angry about the EU.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The finer point being that people did not think this through before they set it in motion.
How I know? Because I made the effort to actually read the post and followed the link and looked what other information that source presents. There I found this article about EU Membership Fee and Economy. They don't pretend to have a definitive answer for this. To quote them directly:

So if the economy is important to you in making your decision, it’s best not to focus too much on the membership fee on its own, and instead think about the impact overall. We’ve looked at the arguments about that here.

So they do seem to care about the facts. However the people who selectively interpret the information that is presented there might still not care about the "full facts". As a result I can say that GP apparently does not think the economy is important, that they don't see the broader implications and "focus too much on membership fee on its own".

Of course like any other larger institution the EU has become self serving. They will be assholes and foul up things as far as they for the UK. Things like EFTA won't safe them from this. It may be a solution if the UK never was in the EU. But since it is, the EU will be using this as a deterrent for others from leaving the EU. And of course it works the other way around and makes joining the EU in the first place less attractive.
In the end it'll cost both. The question that remains is who will pay more for it in the long run. Who could be the new big trade partners of the UK? EFTA nations, sure. America comes first? Japan? Maybe China or even Russia? Probably not the latter two if the US has a say in this.
If you still think that the EU is beyond any reforms, that things will only get worse over time I will have to agree that you'd better leave the EU sooner than later.

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Free trade that comes with an obligation to change your laws to comply is not free trade.

Re:UK

[mjwx]

That's why the UK was so vulnerable to brexit. People really thought it was like some kind of club they could just cancel their membership of and walk away. Someone guy on the TV was talking about how upset he was because he thought that a few days after the vote the UK would be out - he didn't even read the official Leave campaign's leaflet apparently.

Which one?

I read both the Leave.eu and Vote Leave campaign leaflets. Neither actually gave an indication of what post Brexit UK would actually look like, what plans were for economic stability, trade relations with out largest trading partner or even what kind of Brexit they wanted. All they said was "Take BACK Control", a bunch of misleading figures (oft painted on the side of a bus) and allusions to illegal immigrants.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Germany and France want to keep EU together because they pretty much get to rule it - the way votes are distributed in EU, when they agree on something it takes a grand coalition of pretty much freaking everyone else to stop that, and good luck with that, all GER and FR have to do is buy two or three smaller states with some of their own money to vote as they want. That way they get to make laws that prop up their own industries and impose them on the rest of EU. A bit of money is more than a fair price for that. Also, that's why Eastern Europe is most opposed to Brexit, while western kind of pays lip service to them staying but they are secretly glad to see them go - it will slant the situation even more in their favour. And that's why Eastern Europe is very eager for EU to expand while GER and FR are not exactly so.

Yeah, tremble before the might of our combined 16.8% of all votes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Treaty_of_Nice_(2003%E2%80%932014/2017)
All we have to do is bribe Poland, Spain, Romania, Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Rep, Hungary, Sweden and Austria.
Pretty much nothing.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

it's another democratic institution along side the national government.

Its above national governments, not alongside them.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to be aware of the massive benefits to business (and therefor the government via taxes) from being in the EU. It's not just a matter of working out if payments to the EU are greater than payments from the EU. And that doesn't even factor in the number of EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS, or the EU immigrants who are paying more taxes than they get from the government, etc. etc. etc.

You're proving their point - people who don't understand the EU being angry about the EU.

Begin in a free trade zone is to the benefit of both sides - the GB and EU. I don't see why one of them should be forced to pay for the "privilege". And why this one and not the other.

Re:UK

[AmiMoJo]

The Vote Leave one proposed to negotiate a future trade agreement and all other matters relating to leaving before triggering Article 50.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Germany and France want to keep EU together because they pretty much get to rule it - the way votes are distributed in EU, when they agree on something it takes a grand coalition of pretty much freaking everyone else to stop that, and good luck with that, all GER and FR have to do is buy two or three smaller states with some of their own money to vote as they want. That way they get to make laws that prop up their own industries and impose them on the rest of EU. A bit of money is more than a fair price for that. Also, that's why Eastern Europe is most opposed to Brexit, while western kind of pays lip service to them staying but they are secretly glad to see them go - it will slant the situation even more in their favour. And that's why Eastern Europe is very eager for EU to expand while GER and FR are not exactly so.

Yeah, tremble before the might of our combined 16.8% of all votes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union#Treaty_of_Nice_(2003%E2%80%932014/2017)
All we have to do is bribe Poland, Spain, Romania, Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Rep, Hungary, Sweden and Austria.
Pretty much nothing.

Hey, dear German/French. If the EU sucks so much for you, why do you stay in it? Why are you not even *considering* quitting? ...because you're actually reaping enormous benefits from it and are only whining about paying into it in an attempt to get an even bigger slice of the cake?

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk about a balanced view, but you never mention the most important cost of membership - that of giving away most of your nations legislative powers.

I highly respect that the people of Britain wanted to reclaim their national independence; but knowing the beast that the EU is i'll not believe brexit until it actually happens (as opposed to endless stalling, or a deal that keeps the UK indentured).

The single-market trade scare that you are all to happy to propagate is classic fear mongering. There are other countries in europe not part of the EU. Surprise, surprise, theyre not bankrupt. There will however be a period of economic distress where the EU will be making an example of the UK, in order to scare any other countries who entertain the idea of leaving aswell.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

All we have to do is bribe Poland, Spain, Romania, Netherlands, Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Rep, Hungary, Sweden and Austria.

And how often do you think that ALL of those, and a few others to boot, come together against France+Germany? Its not like doing so is an isolated risk-free thing to do, especially when some of the smaller mentioned ones are basically in servitude to either France or Germany.

You should wake up and attend to reality. Politics (esp. international) doesnt work in any way you read about on wikipedia or schoolbooks. Its all backroom deals and no one who isnt a backstabbing viper survives.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

what?
Germany and France have 16.8% of the total vote. We would need ALL of these countries together to force our will on the EU.
The claim was "all GER and FR have to do is buy two or three smaller states with some of their own money to vote as they want".
That statement was totally wrong. We would need to buy A LOT of smaller states.
If I am wrong about this feel free to correct me with facts.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I say the EU sucks for us?
I think the EU is pretty flawed in many respects but still much better than Europe without it.
I was disputing the claim that France and Germany can impose their will on the EU.
I see no factual basis for that.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Sources, please. You have great emotional arguments that are based on a fundamentally "brits are losers" argument, but no data to support it.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanting independence is of course a valid argument.
No matter how cliche it may sound, freedom is not free. At least not if we want to break up with someone you partially depended on. If you weren't the absolutely superior party here, that held all the cards, you'll have to give up one some things that you had taken for granted before. Because staying independent and not having the responsibilities that come with a relationship, while keeping all the benefits of one, does not work out that well.
So the thing is that they didn't just argued about independence but made it about monetary costs, which opens up the argument to all the other factors that play into those monetary 'costs'.

Not being bankrupt is setting the bar pretty low for the future of the UK though. If the both the EU and UK follow through with this hard Brexit, you can be certain that there will be a lot of pissed people in the UK, when they see the aftermath hitting their small businesses that were trading with parties inside of the EU. And if the UK doesn't manage to return to normality before the EU as a scapegoat doesn't work any more things could get ugly for the politicians sitting in the house of commons right now.

And while it may sound scary it's not scaremongering. Even that fullfact site can't deny that there are some serious concerns here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ask-full-fact-our-eu-membership-fee-and-economy
https://fullfact.org/europe/economic-costs-and-benefits-eu-membership/

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to be aware of the massive benefits to business (and therefor the government via taxes) from being in the EU.

Perhaps you can explain how that works when the UK has a trade deficit with the EU?

It's not just a matter of working out if payments to the EU are greater than payments from the EU.

So, if the payments are greater and there is a trade deficit... Again, perhaps you can explain?

And that doesn't even factor in the number of EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS, or the EU immigrants who are paying more taxes than they get from the government, etc. etc. etc.

Is it enough to cover the sharp up-tick in NHS costs since the start of mass migration from the EU? What about the costs of building more schools and other infrastructure to deal with the rapid increase in population?

Re: UK

[Miamicanes]

Sensible compromise (albeit somewhat worthy of a Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett novel): make Britain GMT+0:30 year-round, with the exception of the Greenwich Observatory & its parking lot, plus some symbolic (but small) radius centered upon Stonehenge, which would be GMT year-round.

A sensible combination of pragmatic compromise and symbolism.

Re:UK

[Sir_Eptishous]

I am pretty sure a majority in the UK wand to get rid of changing the clocks.

Get Harry Potter to do it.
It is the UK after all.

Re:UK

[thegarbz]

First you take 13 bil GBP as a membership fee, then in thy holy graciousness and benevolence deign to give 4 bil GBP of that back as a funding for various projects

Yep and that's all you got for 13bn. 4bn back. You certainly didn't get access to a wide range of markets, institutions, technology, partnerships, or anything else that contributed to your economy. And that is perfectly reflected in the fact that when Brexit was announced nothing changed. I mean it's not like your economy started massively under performing, or that companies relocated their headquarters, right?

Membership in the EU is nothing more than a financial transaction where you pay money in exchange for putting a flag on a flagpole. /incredibly-bewildered-sarcasm.

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it though?

Look at what Hungary does. Orban has been pushing it for quite some time and Brussels still hasn't done anything effective against him.

Now imagine what the UK could do under those circumstances. Still having access to all the benefits while doing their own things.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but we'll lose way more than £9bn in trade from hard Brexit. £9bn a year isn't much compared to the costs of leaving and subsequently not being in the EU, especially when you think that since Brexit the government has already blown £1bn on things like bribing the DUP to back them, and £4.2bn on no deal preparations that might not even be necessary. In fact, the cost of having a hard border with the EU and hence the increase amount of customs officers and equipment, as well as the increased amount of staffing and equipment at HMRC to handle tarrifs alone is going to cost way more than our Brexit membership ever did, much less the inevitable reduction in trade: why buy from Britain when there's much more paperwork when you can buy from a fellow EU member state?

And even all that is before you factor in the reality that we're a net importing nation, and the pound has devalued by 35% which inevitably means the cost of importing has risen by that much, and the much promised export boom that would happen from a decrease pound simply hasn't happened. Hint: the UK has had a trade deficit and been a net importer since 1983, it ain't gonna change.

So really you're proving the GP's point, people like you support Brexit because you're economically illiterate. I'm a Brit and £13bn sits just fine with me, in fact, if I had the option post-Brexit I'd happily continue to pay my share of the EU bill because I'm at least intelligent enough to understand that the benefits of it (such as a 35% discounted on anything imported which includes most fuel, food, and clothing nowadays), and not having to have our government piss money away bribing the political wing of a terrorist organisation (the DUP) so that they can obtain absolute power despite not having a political mandate to do so, is well worth the money.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep and that's all you got for 13bn. 4bn back. You certainly didn't get access to a wide range of markets, institutions, technology, partnerships, or anything else that contributed to your economy.

Most of the rest of the world received the same thing and don't contribute a cent to the EU government. I can buy and sell within, go to school, enjoy technologies from, and create partnerships with people and organizations in the EU despite never contributing anything nor even ever being there!

From any point of view outside of "the continent," looks like Europeans are getting shafted by their aristocrats yet again and saying "thank you very much sir!"

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why one of them should be forced to pay for the "privilege". And why this one and not the other.

1) To fund EU institutions.

2) To fund economically weaker EU countries so that all their citizens do to flee to the stronger countries.

There is a lot of bureaucratic waste around that all. Whether the common market benefits are worth it should be studied.

As for as UK decision to leave EU: It is a great joke how Conservative party internal disagreements resulted to leaving EU without any evaluation whether it would be good for UK. Just take some popcorn and follow the fun. This is going to be a great theatre.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard about this from British media outlets, it was definitely covered by several of them. If "none of [you] were told about this", that might be on you yourself

Re:UK

[DNS-and-BIND]

Maybe there's more to it than money. It baffles me that people can't see this. Being in charge of your own destiny is priceless. Moreover a democratic change must be celebrated, not overthrown because it harms the interests of the plutocrats.

Re:UK

[omfglearntoplay]

I was on the fence before, but I think this article has the best stats and arguments for keeping DST. Or implementing it for all 12 months, not just 8.

https://www.popularmechanics.c...

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is. Translation: "I don't care how much it costs, keep the brown people out."

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason why in the early days of the American Republic, Democracy was a term that was derided and considered a bad thing. A Tyranny of the majority is still a Tyranny. I believe Madison wrote something about this once.

It was primarily the reason the American Constitutional Convention happened, because the State governments were too democratic, and they were damaging the credit and rule of law by invalidating debts, breaking contracts, etc.

Democracy is not always to be celebrated, when it is a mad uninformed mob of rabble making **** decisions.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that the UK is one of the founding members of the European Union, right?

You do know that Winston Churchill himself wanted a united Europe so horrible things like WW1 and WW2 wouldn't happen again, right?

I'll take a 13 billion euro membership versus another World War any time of the day.

Re: UK

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is. Translation: "I can't answer your economics questions and they disprove my religion so I'm going to accuse you of racism." It's only racists that use the term "brown people". Here in England, we just call them people.

Re:UK

[hoofie]

it's another democratic institution along side the national government.

The idea of the EU government being democratic is laughable and it's long term plan does not involve it working alongside National Governments. It's aim is to be supra-national - why otherwise does it seek it's own defence assets ? How is that going to work alongside Nato ?

The EU's long term plan is a quasi-sovereign state run by the French and Germans to serve their primary interests. Actually no, it's mainly to serve German interests as they are bankrolling it, the French are useful idiots at this point.

The beauty is National Governments are democratically elected - the EU leaders are managing nicely to sidestep that leaving an EU Parliament which is just a talking shop and expense account racket.

Re:UK

[hoofie]

EU workers propping up vital institutions like the NHS

It used to be easy for Nurses and Doctors from the Commonwealth to work in the NHS.

However EU rules made it considerably harder for those people to gain accreditation yet made it much, much easier for EU citizens whose English is often terrible or those with suspicious qualifications.

You make it sound like any EU citizens working in the NHS will be deported instantly - absolute bullshit.

Why don't you post what is GOOD about belonging in the EU rather than doom-and-gloom about leaving ? Something the Remain sellers have manifestly failed to do.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

It is baffling since that particular AC did not argue about that at all. No, he made it all about money and cherrypicked the angle on this in a very naive way.

Re:UK

[MrL0G1C]

So how did you find out about it? Were you contacted by the survey people or did you find out via some third party. Because if third parties were the main means by which people found out about the survey then the survey us potentially useless. If this third party can figure a way of notifying lots of people they think will vote in a particular direction then that obviously would skew the result.

Re:UK

[No Longer an AC]

Or implementing it for all 12 months, not just 8.

I think when most people say they want to get rid of DST, they really mean they just want to get rid of having to adjust twice a year. I know better and I often make that mistake.

I only skimmed the article because I'm firmly entrenched in my views on adjusting my clocks (including my own physical one) twice a year. I'd sooner just have everyone use GMT. We'd just get used to the fact that in California the sun rises sometime around noon and that now Hawaii is a land of the midnight sun.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like you didnt even read my post before you replied.

Yes, you are wrong in that your reasoning assumes that all those countries would be voting against the germany and france in the first place. They never stood alone in the first place, they already have allies and vassals. As i hinted at, some of these dont even have a choice and others are simply of the same opinion. This leads them to only have to influence "a few" (i didnt write the original post tho, but its pretty spot on).

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Not being bankrupt is setting the bar pretty low for the future of the UK though. If the both the EU and UK follow through with this hard Brexit, you can be certain that there will be a lot of pissed people in the UK, when they see the aftermath hitting their small businesses that were trading with parties inside of the EU. And if the UK doesn't manage to return to normality before the EU as a scapegoat doesn't work any more things could get ugly for the politicians sitting in the house of commons right now.

And while it may sound scary it's not scaremongering. Even that fullfact site can't deny that there are some serious concerns here:

Pish-posh. It is scare-mongering, because you dont realise what assumptions are behind the figures.

Lets get real, the countries in question are Norway, Swizerland, Lichtenstein and possibly Iceland depending on how you define Europe. None of them are in the EU yet these countries are generally better of economically than many EU countries. If the EU wasnt so dead-set on acting like an abusive ex-husband and punishing the UK for getting out - then the UK would do very well on their own.

Most of the fear-mongering is based on assumptions on EU behaviours. Such as the fallacy of "you cant leave the EU and still have access to the market". Yes, you can - it's called EFTA - and the four countries i mentioned above are all part of EFTA without beeing in the EU. Once you think it through, it means that the fear-mongering about trade is actually based on the fact that the EU is petty, abusive, vengeful and would never treat the UK equal to other european countries not in the EU. Worse yet, the idea proposed by the fear-mongerers is that the UK should stay with EU despite it all. Like any breakup with an abusive spouse, the transition can be tough, but in the end its worth it.

Re:UK

[sjames]

The only problem is you'd have clueless PHBs that insist that 9:00 is 9:00, so the office will not be changing it's hours when the clock goes to GMT. Anyonme who thinks they're going to lazily saunter into the office at 12:00 (just as the sun is rising) can find a new job. It's the same reason the proposal to pin the clock to an offset and let businesses have summer hours and winter hours is a non-starter.

Re:UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you think it through it's just a fact that the EU will be vengeful about this and will make the UK pay for this divorce. If they don't want the entire thing to just fall apart they need to make an example of the UK.
The smarter thing would indeed be to stay until the UK has settled these questions. In the meant time they could still influence the EU from the inside. I think that was even the original idea of at least some of the Leave proponents. As far as I know there's no clause that allows a country to attempt to leave the EU only once. So that door will be always open for them.
That this is a realistic possibility is already has been proven for some time by Viktor Orban in Hungary. To Brussels Hungary is apparently more worth as a crafty consumer in the single market who takes money from their funds than they cause trouble by not playing along and perpetuating anti EU rethoric. So they have let them do their own thing.
If you think that the UK is less valuable to the EU than Hungary in any given case, like a provisional remain case, you're not seeing things clearly here.

For the people of the UK's sake I hope that your wishful thinking turns out to be true and things will turn out just well. But given the other options that are open for the UK, the hard Brexit they're currently heading towards does not seem like the smartest choice.

It's time for Tesla News!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is happening to Slashdot??? It used to be a great website for hourly updates about with Elon Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX. I haven't seen anything posted about any of these in almost a whole day!

Re: It's time for Tesla News!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think emptied Quadratica's crypto accounts?

You do you

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in a country that's in CET+DST but according to the map should be in UTC, and I wasn't asked a thing either.

Frankly, I'd be happy to get rid of DST but I'm getting so sick of king drunkard and the EUrocrats. You at least got some sort of vote. We just had a minister get rid of the "advising referendum" mechanism because "it hadn't brought the voter what we expected of it" (==the voters voted "wrong" so the minister took the toy away).

As dysfunctional as UK politics are, I'm starting to wonder if that isn't preferrable to the bland "concensus" we have here. We get dog+pony shows come voting time, but actual general policy doesn't change even if we swap the government with one from the other end of the political spectrum.

On top of that we're stuck with decree after decree from unelected EUcommissars and whatever else runs around in Strabruxelles. It's all so obviously ment do draw attention away from what's really happening in the previously smoky backrooms. Making them smoke-free obviously hasn't improved things even a tiny bit.

Re: You do you

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be great for you to list some examples of these decrees. What I mean to say is I think you are full of sh*t. Whether that is because you are Russian and trying to break up the EU or someone who has consumed their propaganda, I cannot tell. The diplomats in Brussels do things like force mobile phone companies to share towers so that one can roam Europe and always have signal. They work on the sort of rules and standards that make it easier to trade, or environmental standards. For example, Germany resists strict auto emissions standards due to the political influence of the auto industry, aka corruption. The EU was able to push strict regulations through anyway because many EU members do not have a strong auto industry. To be blunt, life in Europe would suck a lot more without the bureaucrats in Brussels.

Re: You do you

[hoofie]

1) You are anonymous so don't have the balls to insult someone directly
2) For many countries, EU Directives are treated as suggestions and basically ignored.
3) The UK and other advanced economies had standards long before the EU.
4) You are a paid Brussels shill and I claim my five euros.

UK?

[Kokuyo]

Who dat and why does the rest of the EU care? :D

Seriously though it's about time. But knowing my luck, they'll be using summer time. However, being constantly one hour off beats switching twice a year. By a long shot.

Re:UK?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more sun in the summer, so it must be from Daylight Saving Time!

Re:UK?

[MrL0G1C]

I prefer BST, it gets dark far too early in winter, if farmers want to get up early then fine, they can and will, farmers have far more choice than your average worker. In British winter (spring) the sun wakes me up too early and it's still dark before I even set off home.

A true story: Euro DST headache

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago sitting at my desk troubleshooting a time problem while scarfing down some Chinese noodles.

The complaint was system wouldn't accept entry of what sounded like an ordinary date. Not a complete dunce when it comes to this shit but I don't revel in time based pedantry either... in short classic WTF moment.

Turns out euro DST changeover is fixed to UTC which means in some time zones the first instant of a new day isn't 00:00 but 01:00. Underlying data fields were not date only and as customary date only entry means time 00:00 which doesn't fucking exist on one special day of the year in one special slice of earth.

Re: A true story: Euro DST headache

[Anonymous Coward]

DST switchover occurs at 2am (in the timezone you're leaving), so there's always a midnight.

It's done like that so dropping back an hour doesn't change the day as well

Re: A true story: Euro DST headache

[Anonymous Coward]

DST switchover occurs at 2am (in the timezone you're leaving), so there's always a midnight.

That might be true where you live, but OP very clearly specified where they were talking about, and in that context you are wrong.

But that said, in order for OP to be 100% right there needs to be a European country in a UTC-1 time zone. And I am not finding one.

Don't stop right there

[Anonymous Coward]

That will be great if the Parliament also ends the EU Commission, another cold war relic. Then end NATO. Fuck the EU, like said that Nuland bitch.

What a bunch of Cnuts

[nagora]

I'm happy to stop changing the clocks, but I don't want to stick to summer time. I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[r2kordmaa]

Shift your working hours to whatever you want? Close the curtains? Get used to it?

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[serviscope_minor]

I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.

I like the sky being light at night when I'm awake. I don't like it being light at 5am when I'm trying to sleep to a reasonable time before getting up for work.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[Anne Thwacks]

I like the sky being light at night when I'm awake.

Sometimes the Sun comes up at 5AM, sometimes at 10AM. The sun keeps moving about.

Its not the EU that does it, its God. (no, I don't mean Trump). If you don't like it, go to church and pray for God to have a re-think. Or fit blackout blinds behind your curtains, like most shift workers.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[nagora]

Fuck off?

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[thegarbz]

I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.

Get curtains.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[DamonHD]

Day length changes from ~8h to ~16h in the UK between winter and summer. No single fixed shift (especially of an hour) is or ever will suit all use cases. We should be adapting our work and travel (etc) patterns with the seasons to reflect that. The council cemetery opposite me manages a simple schedule of opening to only let people in when it's light, for example.

Rgds

Damon

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[DamonHD]

Mmm, yes, blackout blinds are definitely our friends, and free of religion and (most) ceremony!

Rgds

Damon

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[Opportunist]

The worse thing would be that during winter, people have to drive about in pitch black darkness when going to work. Sunrise in Stockholm is at about 8:30 in Midwinter. With perpetual DST it would be 9:30. Even twilight is something you don't encounter until about 7:30, or 8:30 in perpetual DST. I don't know when schools start in your area, but I'd not feel good sending my kids to school when it's night.

I mean, it's fine for people in Palermo, they have daylight from 7:20 (or 8:20 with perpetual DST), but the further north you get, the less acceptable perpetual DST becomes.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[Anonymous Coward]

For fuck's sake, it's just numbers. Each region can adjust working/school hours to whatever works best at that latitude and season. The idea that seasonal variations can be compensated by a 1 hour linear offset is mathematically absurd.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[thegarbz]

Fuck off?

Well yeah that is an option too.

Re:What a bunch of Cnuts

[uvajed_ekil]

If you go to bed before 9 or 10 PM in July (depending upon how far East or West you are in your timezone), that's your problem. Rather than getting rid of Daylight Saving Time, I want it instituted year round as our regular time. Those late evenings in the summer are the best, and are a productive time for many, many of us. I don't care if it's dark when I get up in the Winter - plenty of people get up early enough that it's dark anyway, even on Standard Time. Most people aren't agricultural workers anymore who benefit from light at 5 AM.

Permanent DST is evil

[Erik Hensema]

Problem with DST is that people don't understand the consequences of their choices. An oft heard argument is that one wants to keep DST year round, because they're a night dweller and they like the extra hour of light at the end of the day in winter too.
What they don't understand is there is also an extra hour of dark at the start of the day. They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST. Consequently they'll have to go to bed an hour earlier. Exactly the opposite a night dweller would want.

Personally I don't care if we abandon DST. I live in the Netherlands, which is quite northerly. We get about 8 hours of sunlight in winter, and 16 hours in summer. But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[thegarbz]

What they don't understand is there is also an extra hour of dark at the start of the day.

And? It's night when we get up, it's night when we're at work. That is EXACTLY what we want. Shitty useless lack of sunshine during work hours, and nice useful sunshine during pleasure hours.

They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST.

Actually they'll get up at the exact same local time.

But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.

Nope, screw the sun in the morning. We don't need it.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[hazardPPP]

Personally I don't care if we abandon DST. I live in the Netherlands, which is quite northerly. We get about 8 hours of sunlight in winter, and 16 hours in summer. But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.

I'm in Southern Europe. We're not on DST yet, and sunrise this morning was at 6:04 AM. I rarely get up before 7:15-7:30 AM. Sun at 6? I don't care. Neither do most people, standard working hours are from 8:30. In January, sunrise is around 7:15. With permanent DST, it would be 8:15. It gets lighter (morning twilight) about an hour or so before sunrise of course. And January days here are usually grey and gloomy anyways, most days you won't see the sun.

With DST, sunrise in August is around 5:30-45 AM. In June it's 5:00 AM, which means morning twilight is already at 4. Without it, it would 4:30 AM in August, 4 AM in June and twilight an hour earlier. Pretty useless for most people, and also sleep-interrupting.

In conclusion, I want DST year round, i.e. to move permanently to the GMT+2 time zone. The "natural" time zone in most of the country is about GMT+1.5 anyways, so we're off by half an hour either way.

It has occurred to me through these discussions about DST that time zones should not only be made east to west, but also north to south. What makes in Scandinavia might not make sense in Central Europe and neither of that might make sense in the Mediterranean.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[AmiMoJo]

The whole point of being on DST permanently is to not get up any earlier and shift that hour of daylight to the evening. People don't care so much if they go to work in the dark, they want their own personal time to be in daylight.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The fuck it is. I want some sun light in the winter evening. It's complelety wasted sun light when i'm traveling or at work.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Erik Hensema]

You must be a morning person then. Good on you.

Lot's of people need sunlight for their natural sleep/wake cycles. Shifting the time an hour away from the natural time zone makes it harder for most people.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

How did they do it before there were clocks to keep track of the time?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a morning person then. Good on you.

Lot's of people need sunlight for their natural sleep/wake cycles. Shifting the time an hour away from the natural time zone makes it harder for most people.

Right, because the morning people have no rights and deserve to be screwed. In most of the world the time is already dramatically shifted for the evening people's benefit. When was the last time you were forced by your timzezone to go to bed before sundown? Yeah, never, not even in the middle of summer, unless you live really close to polar lattitudes. And yet morning people are expected to sleep 3-4 hours into the (solar) day in the summer, and that's supposedly okay.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't all live in the south. Here, sunrise on 1st Jan is 8:40. With yearlong DST, that would be 9:40. And there are people in Europe a lot further north than here.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Opportunist]

You're happy with sending your kids to school in darkness?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Opportunist]

I can't talk about others, but I wouldn't want to send my kids to school in darkness.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[acoustix]

You're happy with sending your kids to school in darkness?

This is a terrible argument and in my experience the whole bullshit of "won't someone please think of the children" is usually covering for some other piss poor excuse.

For the record, I don't care if it is dark out when my kids go to school.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[RobinH]

What's the difference between permanent DST and just permanent non-DST with everyone getting up an hour earlier? Plus, with non-DST at least noon happens when the sun is directly overhead, which has some real meaning.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Opportunist]

From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is stopping you from getting up with the sun at 03:30 in summer.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[AmiMoJo]

What's the difference between permanent DST and just permanent non-DST with everyone getting up an hour earlier?

The cartoons finish before I get home from work.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[acoustix]

From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.

I live in a rural area as well. We have no problems. Nor did our parents, grandparents or great grandparents.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in northwestern Europe, I hope we abolish DST and revert to our standard time. An extra hour of darkness may not matter during your personal morning commute, but here we tend to have (historically) narrow roads in cities and suburbs being shared between commuters (car or bike) and kids on their way to school, often by bike. Apart from the congestion, road conditions during the winter months are rarely optimal as it stands (wet, icy), especially in the morning. The safety statistics in these months are bad. Adding an hour of darkness there (and thus prolong the dark season in the morning) is a bad idea imho as it will lead to even more accidents and unnecessary loss of lives.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[j-beda]

I can't talk about others, but I wouldn't want to send my kids to school in darkness.

Your local school board could decide on times that make sense for your local conditions.

Yes, I realize that this also involves tradeoffs between parental working hours.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[mjwx]

Problem with DST is that people don't understand the consequences of their choices. An oft heard argument is that one wants to keep DST year round, because they're a night dweller and they like the extra hour of light at the end of the day in winter too.
What they don't understand is there is also an extra hour of dark at the start of the day. They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST. Consequently they'll have to go to bed an hour earlier. Exactly the opposite a night dweller would want.

Personally I don't care if we abandon DST. I live in the Netherlands, which is quite northerly. We get about 8 hours of sunlight in winter, and 16 hours in summer. But please for the love of god don't establish DST year round. I'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 please.

This, GMT and DST in the UK are designed to maximise the amount of daylight available for work and play after work (in the summer). Here in lovely Berkshire in June the sun is up from 5:00 to 22:00 and in January from 7:30 to 16:30. Adopting GMT the year round means that light goes from 4:00 to 21:00 in the summer, adopting BST year round means that daylight is from 8:30 to 17:30.

As it stands in winter I'm already leaving work in darkness and barely coming to work in daylight... Also I've lived in a place with no daylight savings (Western Australia), having the sun up at 4:00 when you're trying to sleep is a right pain in the arse. I, like most people can't do anything with an extra hour before work but love that extra hour of sleep I get.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans messing with circadian rhythm is bad enough, but permanently shifting human time from sun time is pure hubris and simply wrong.

Noon is when the sun is more or less at its highest point in the sky. That's the definition. If people want to have sunlight after work, they need to set different times for start and end of work time, not shift around the clock. The clock is supposed to track the passing of time, the highest and lowest point of the sun during each day. Making it do anything else is hubristic social engineering.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

This requires a ridiculous amount of coordination between all economic agents and is inefficient.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute. No need for daylight to watch cartoons now, is there?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.

I live in a rural area as well. We have no problems. Nor did our parents, grandparents or great grandparents.

Well, is that because DST stops it being dark when your kids (and you, and your parents, and your grandparents) went to school?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody is stopping you from getting up at 16:00 or whatever. And?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST.

And how do you come to that conclusion? My work day starts at 9a whether it is in the summer or the winter, and I do not see my boss suddenly deciding that work hours need to change twice a year if we do away with clock changes twice a year.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Opportunist]

Maybe because you didn't go to school an hour early in Winter?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Luthair]

Personally I don't care either way, pick one, the other or split the difference. Changing is dumb, and has been shown to straight up kill people through road accidents and heart attacks.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never found it scary to walk in the dark. Maybe that's because I grew up without ubiquitous street lights. My eyes learned to accomodate to relative dark. I didn't even have a "night light". Anyway no modern kid knows what darkness is, they have their phones on all the time so the argument is moot.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[GuB-42]

They'll have to get up an hour earlier in winter because of permanent DST. Consequently they'll have to go to bed an hour earlier. Exactly the opposite a night dweller would want.

Relative to the sun, yes, you are right. As a night dweller myself who likes DST, I asked myself that very question. I mean, I shouldn't like that, it means waking up 1 hour earlier, something I normally hate.
But the truth is: it is not just about the sun. It is more about enjoying the quiet moments when everyone else is gone. I suppose morning people get similar feelings when they arrive before everyone else. Permanent DST would allow me to continue doing stuff after others and get an extra hour of sunlight.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[acoustix]

From time to time the argument works. Because this is really about the kids. I know that in rural areas around here, kids still walk to school. And walking about alone in the dark is scary.

I live in a rural area as well. We have no problems. Nor did our parents, grandparents or great grandparents.

Well, is that because DST stops it being dark when your kids (and you, and your parents, and your grandparents) went to school?

No, DST isn't in effect then. But even so, it is still dark after school starts without it. So there wouldn't be much of a different in the morning if we used DST year round. Let's be realistic here: the morning hours are not productive in most societies. You can't work outdoors within city limits in most places before 8AM anyway. So why not have that sunlight available later in the day?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[acoustix]

Maybe because you didn't go to school an hour early in Winter?

I'm not sure about you, but where I live it is still dark after school starts for several days/weeks in the winter. So it's already happening. Nobody keeps their kids home from school because of that. Hell, there isn't any mention of it as a concern.

So this isn't a real concern. Of course I'm not not lobbying the federal government to make a change. It is decided at the state level. So I've been asking my state reps to consider the change. It gains more support every year and I think it will eventually happen where we switch to DST year round.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Mordaximus]

The whole point of being on DST permanently is to not get up any earlier and shift that hour of daylight to the evening. People don't care so much if they go to work in the dark, they want their own personal time to be in daylight.

Who cares! I work from home and it's super dark in my parents' basement. /jk

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[thegarbz]

You must be a morning person then. Good on you.

No. I hate it. The morning could not exist as far as I care. The ability to sit in the park at 11pm in summer and have a BBQ is a guilty pleasure of mine and getting up before about 11am sucks.

Lot's of people need sunlight for their natural sleep/wake cycles. Shifting the time an hour away from the natural time zone makes it harder for most people.

If you need sunlight to wake you up the get a sun clock, because no single adjustment in any timezone will ever fix the problems you're experience. The vast majority of the European population experiences large variances in daylight hours between summer and winter. Technology exists to fix your problem, there's no technology that makes the sun shine for only those people who actually prefer to do something other than vegetate in front of the TV after work.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[thegarbz]

Maybe because you didn't go to school an hour early in Winter?

I'm more inclined to believe he's not a softcock.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[uvajed_ekil]

Roads are fine here, and not 500 years old. I want permanent DST. Removing an hour of evening light in the summer is a bad idea imho as it will lead to even less productive social and family time outdoors and unnecessary loss of life.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[uvajed_ekil]

So everyone should be punished because some of you choose to live at ridiculously high latitudes? DST isn't your problem, living unnaturally far North is.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[houghi]

I am a night dweller living in Belgium. I would love it to be Wintertime all the time.

In the winter it is dark in the morning, no matter what. That one hour in the morning makes no difference. The most issues I have are not the morning. I sleep or I work. I do not care for light or dark.

In the evening is what matters. When I am sipping my beer after work, am I blinded by the siun ir not?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[uvajed_ekil]

What's the difference between permanent DST and just permanent non-DST with everyone getting up an hour earlier? Plus, with non-DST at least noon happens when the sun is directly overhead, which has some real meaning.

Do you really think employers are just all going to agree to change people's working hours to better align with non-DST? Good luck with that - I guarantee we won't start and end our work days earlier if we get rid of DST, resulting in us losing an hour of daylight from Spring through Fall, when we all have things to do outside.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote we put you in charge of the world's DST and timezone policies! Factoring in north and south aspects is brilliant! Only downsides I can think of have to do with having to mentally and technically adjust for those who interact up and down the world, and it would likely make a timezone map more complex. But those seem manageable. Overall seems to result in a net improvement to society, especially health and happiness (hopefully!)

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't talk about others, but I wouldn't want to send my kids to school in darkness.

A bit further up north, in winter, the kids not only go to school in darkenss, but also return from school when it'a already dark as well. And yet, somehow they do manage to avoid the grues.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[apoc.famine]

Lot's of people need sunlight for their natural sleep/wake cycles.

I honestly have no idea what you're arguing about. If you need sunlight, then make sure you get sunlight.

That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we change the time on the clock twice a year. You do what's right for you.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[31eq]

Right. We hear a lot about "DST all year round" or, up here, "permanent summertime". It doesn't sound as good if you call it "getting up an hour earlier in the winter".

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[apoc.famine]

That's a local problem. That's not a whole continent's problem. Hell, probably not a whole country's problem either.

If it's a problem for your community, change when school starts.

Why the fuck do you think your local problem should require everyone in the world to change their clocks twice a year?

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not forget that the holiday break around Christmas currently takes up a good portion of the worst period for schoolgoing kids. But days/weeks become weeks/months in your scenario, and for what? To walk the dogs for 15 minutes after work before it gets dark anyway around 6pm?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Erik Hensema]

I still have to go to work, which still starts at 9, so I still have to get up around 7:00 ~ 7:30. Which would be at least 3 hours before sunrise if my country would choose permanent DST.

So no, I cannot do what's right for me which is live by the solar cycle.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Obfuscant]

DST isn't your problem, living unnaturally far North is.

He'll remember you said that when you need to move north because his climate is warm and livable and your house is either three feet under water or surrounded by boiling lakes. Shoe on the other foot then, huh?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of Europe is at that "ridiculously high latitude", similar to Canada.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Spain too. If they remove the DST, we push to change the working hours, so we will have one hours on winter and another on summer, so we could enjoy light just in the same way than in DST (just with different time reference).

But, yeah, DST is useful because work like a coordinated working hour change across whole country.
If you depend on external services, this coordination is really helpful.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[hazardPPP]

We don't all live in the south. Here, sunrise on 1st Jan is 8:40. With yearlong DST, that would be 9:40. And there are people in Europe a lot further north than here.

As I said:

It has occurred to me through these discussions about DST that time zones should not only be made east to west, but also north to south. What makes sense in Scandinavia might not make sense in Central Europe and neither of that might make sense in the Mediterranean.

Denmark and Italy do not need to be in the same time zone.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[hazardPPP]

Thanks :)

Well, the timezone map is already complex. It's not nice straight lines anyway, and there are already some north-south differences.

As for working across borders...well, I live in Southern Europe, and work for a company on the west coast of North America. The time difference between us is 9 hours. We manage. I'm sure that a one hour difference between Palermo and Nijmegen would be absolutely manageable. Just like the current one hour difference between London and Paris, or Berlin and Helsinki is too.

Re: Permanent DST is evil

[hazardPPP]

I mean, the key is to realize that the Earth does not only spin around its axis, but that it also tilts. That is why we have different season north and south of the equator. Therefore different time zones as you move away from the equator also make sense.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[sjames]

Which would be at least 3 hours before sunrise if my country would choose permanent DST.

As opposed to the two hours before sunrise that you already have to deal with somehow.

How hard would it be to do that somehow for an additional hour on winter mornings?Either way, you're at work before the sun comes up.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[sjames]

A zillion years ago, we delayed falling back one year, so I went to school in the dark. I can assure you, me and the other kids quite enjoyed it. It was a great excuse to take a flashlight to school if nothing else.

These days, they'd probably enjoy how well the LEDs in their sneakers show up.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[sjames]

Plus, with non-DST at least noon happens when the sun is directly overhead, which has some real meaning.

Actually, within a standard time zone, high noon will be roughly between 11:30 and 12:30 according to the clock depending on your location.

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[RobinH]

Obviously, but doesn't that make more sense than high noon being sometime between 12:30 and 1:30 pm?

Re:Permanent DST is evil

[sjames]

It probably makes more sense to consider high noon a specific measurable event that has only loose bearing on our modern reckoning of time. It might actually be less confusing if high noon is NEVER noon according to the clock rather than sometimes.

UK still getting a vote?

[TangoCharlie]

Why doesn't the EU wait until after March 29th to take the vote? UK won't be part of the EU then. It would be weird though having to change your watches going from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland though, should the UK and Eire adopt different approaches.

Re:UK still getting a vote?

[thegarbz]

Why doesn't the EU wait until after March 29th to take the vote? UK won't be part of the EU then.

That's a bit presumptuous. Personally I think they'll take from the USA playbook and give that can a good hard kick down the road.

Quit your whining EU citizen!

[Anonymous Coward]

You said your opinion didn't matter, now look here! We've just saved you from adjusting your watch, not that that matters in the digital age anyway! Wow, right? Never again will you think that you are but a powerless sheep! Well, off you go, and don't you be thinkin' no wrongthink, mmkay? We've got more urgent matters to attend to, I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more integration!

Countries

[Anonymous Coward]

"The European Commission and European Parliament are set to end daylight saving time in 2021, at least in some states."
The EU consists of countries, not of states. The unelected elite would love to turn Europe into a "United States of Europe" with a federal government, but as of now, that's not the case.

Re:Countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting view, albeit this goes both ways. US, Australia and a few others are countries made of states ; UK is a state made of countries (and overseas territories with various statutes). "State" is fine to me as in member state, like a member state of the UN. I'm not disagreeing with you but seeing this a bit differently (and "state" vs "country" may be innocuous most times).

The elites as far as I can see want to turn the EU into an "Europe of regions" or "great regions" whatever they call them. Think of Bavaria and other German Länder. France actually changed their regions, conflating them into fewer bigger ones. Some regions will remain rather administrative in nature but elites also want us to view them as "folkloric" countries of sorts when possible. You will have Brittany, Alsatz, Spanish Catalonia, Bavaria, Tuscany, Sicily (you could have probably put in Wales, Scotland, North Ireland in there) and other regionalisms in other countries (states) whatever they are.
This could be what the "United States of Europe" are made of rather than the member states themselves. The member states would probably go on existing though, as a layer of diminished importance.
Another layer might be "metropolises" or whatever they're called. This just means "big town" or a big town exercizing influence over an area. So, economic and regional capitals. These get investments, bankers, suits and ties, tech hipsters, authoritarian urbanism which we also must fight back.

Re:Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

by the way the ECHR is not a EU institution, its member states are :

        Albania
        Andorra
        Armenia
        Austria
        Azerbaijan
        Belgium
        Bosnia and Herzegovina
        Bulgaria
        Croatia
        Cyprus
        Czech Republic
        Denmark
        Estonia
        Finland
        France
        Georgia
        Germany
        Greece
        Hungary
        Iceland
        Ireland
        Italy
        Latvia
        Liechtenstein
        Lithuania
        Luxembourg
        Malta
        Moldova
        Monaco
        Montenegro
        Netherlands
        North Macedonia1
        Norway
        Poland
        Portugal
        Romania
        Russia
        San Marino
        Serbia
        Slovakia
        Slovenia
        Spain
        Sweden
        Switzerland
        Turkey
        Ukraine
        United Kingdom

Surprise!

[thegarbz]

But the survey was not representative, with 3 million of the 4.6 million votes coming from Germany. This led to diplomats from smaller EU countries complaining behind closed doors that the European Commission wanted to impose German will on the other states through sheer populism.

I'm pretty sure we at Slashdot called it. When you make a decision based on a marketing campaign of a small vocal minority don't expect a smooth change.

Re:Surprise!

[AmiMoJo]

This is both a flawed understanding of surveys and a flawed understanding of how EU democracy works.

There have been calls for this from elected EU representatives for years. The survey was just to gauge public opinion. That more responses came from Germany isn't really an issue - you can just break it down by country and look at ratios individually, while also accounting for the fact that participants were self-selecting.

The way TFA phrases it is just to create some drama. In reality all those smaller states have a veto over this, but they probably won't oppose it in the end. They will compromise, maybe ask for some cash to help with the transition. They of course accept that being in a democracy means compromising, and getting the greater benefits of EU membership in exchange.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality all those smaller states have a veto over this, but they probably won't oppose it in the end.

Thats because they technically dont have a veto or even a choice in the matter once the descision is final. What they do have is an obligation to control the implementation (note that its not called a right). The countries are bound to implement it, but they can stall it quite a while due to the control over their particular national implementation.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the survey was not representative, with 3 million of the 4.6 million votes coming from Germany. This led to diplomats from smaller EU countries complaining behind closed doors that the European Commission wanted to impose German will on the other states through sheer populism.

I'm pretty sure we at Slashdot called it. When you make a decision based on a marketing campaign of a small vocal minority don't expect a smooth change.

The representatives from all the other states knew about the survey and the proposal? They didn't tell their own people or conduct surveys at home or promote participation in the survey? Media outlets in all these other states are not covering this and doing their own surveys if they think it's a hot topic?

Or is it not really a hot topic.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

In reality all those smaller states have a veto over this, but they probably won't oppose it in the end.

Thats because they technically dont have a veto or even a choice in the matter once the descision is final. What they do have is an obligation to control the implementation (note that its not called a right). The countries are bound to implement it, but they can stall it quite a while due to the control over their particular national implementation.

Is an online survey that expensive to run in a small European country? I mean mail out survey monkey links or something. Maybe there is nothing even close to a majority opposed to this in any country... why would we presume there would be?

People are just trying to stir shit to stir shit.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU doesnt really care about referendums or surveys tho. If one such goes against the EU, they either ignore it or make people vote again.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/53/9b/64539b0e4c8d3f7bac1ab326193750ae.jpg

Since this post has been on top for a while

[bobstreo]

I guess changing clocks is too hard. When I thought some more about it, the only clocks I actually needed to change were the mechanical clock in the living room and the dumb stove and dumb microwave in the kitchen.

It seems like everything else knows when to spring forward or fall behind. cell phones, tablets, TVs, computers...

The things I hate most about DST is when I wake up at 7;00 and can't figure out if it's AM or PM since the alarm clock can't do 24 hour time.

That and the dark drive to work, to the windowless cube farm, and the dark drive home 9-10 hours later.

Re:Since this post has been on top for a while

[jbengt]

It isn't changing clocks that's hard. It's changing sleep patterns, especially if your an older fart like me.

Re:Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wow. Is the EU the new Russia? Being blamed for everything?

I have to admit that siding with the Jews for a change does give this propaganda a new interesting twist. The ones that usually shit on the EU like that also like to blame Jews for whatever. For example they like to claim that the EU is controlled by banks, which again are controlled by Jews.

Compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we remove just the winter, or just the summer change for, say, 5 years to allow people to get used to the idea. Then we can remove the other one.

Re:Compromise

[moronoxyd]

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you don't understand how this works.

If we're only removing one of the two the clock will move forwards (or backwards) an hour in each of the 5 years, resulting in watches being completly out of sync with the sun, the rest of the world and, well, everything.

Re:Compromise

[Opportunist]

Well, to be fair, we would sync with the rest of the world. A different part of the world every year, sure, but still.

Leave it to Gov. to complicate

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think since the majority of people want one time standard things wouldn't be hard for government. But you would be wrong.

Re:Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense, the EU has absolutely nothing to do with these wars. Those were carried out by NATO and more precisely, by member states themselves. The EU isn't supposed to interfere in member states' defense policies, as it was not designed as a military union. There are no treaties that legislate on these matters and the EU is simply not allowed to interfere, even if they wanted.

Besides, the EU did a pretty good job at preventing conflicts inside its borders. Nobody claimed that the EU would prevent wars globally. But preventing wars inside the EU's border is one of the objectives - and it's been pretty successful. Without the EU wars in Europe are just a matter of time.

If you are looking for responsibility about the state of the Middle East - look at the US and NATO.

DST is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am totally for DST.

Morning in winter is already terrible - it won't get much worse.

But one hour of sun in the afternoon in November and February would be great...

Re: DST is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you live somewhere with shit weather. Like fucking Chicago. Here, we need the extra hour of light in the morning. Because if we donâ(TM)t have it, weâ(TM)ll be slipping around on icy roads for an extra hour until the sun comes up to âoeactivateâ the salt.

Not that it really activates it, but the sunlight combined with salt on dark pavement speeds up the thawing process and is usually what it takes to get traffic moving. Driving around in the dark in January is a recipe for disaster.

Re: DST is great!

[jbengt]

I'd prefer it if noon was based on the sun, but the Chicago area (where I've lived most of my life) is on the eastern end of the timezone, so DST or not should be 30 minutes of one or half an hour of the other. However, just the opposite of the parent AC, I'd prefer it to be dark when I leave for work, so I can sleep on the train without the sun in my eyes; plus I like it when there's still sun out when I get home. So I'd vote for year-round DST, but only if I don't get a choice to base the local clock closer to solar noon.

they created a mess

[sad_]

when i heard the news i was all excited, that excitement lasted for a few seconds when they said that each country was going to able to choose what they'll want to do for themselves.

really? that is not what we wanted.

now you'll have countries that will not have dst, other will still have it, some will use a different dst then what they have now, and there are even some countries thinking about having something in the middle. and all of these could be neighbouring countries, you could travel from denmark to italy and cross 6 different time zones. that is actaully worse then having an EU wide dst, at least that was something everybody used.

Re:they created a mess

[zekica]

All EU countries will have to stop using DST.

They will be able to choose whether they want to have UTC+0, UTC+1, UTC+2 or UTC+3

So the number of time zones won't change: currently you have +0, +1, +2 and summer time that adds one hour.

What really bothers me is that noon in some Spanish cities in the summer can be as late as 2:30pm (1:30pm in winter). They changed the time zone during WWII but didn't bother to change back.

If Spain chooses UTC+2, they will have sunrise in 9:37am in December.

Re:they created a mess

[Opportunist]

I'd predict that you will see a difference between the north, which will more likely want to stick with standard time, and south, who are probably more interested in keeping DST permanently.

"states"

[ruddk]

I wonder how many citizens consider their country being a "state" in the EU. I know it is the politician's wet dream, and something they lied about would not happen, to have the United States of Europe.

Re:"states"

[nagora]

The EU only has subjects, not citizens. Citizens can change their government; subjects can't.

Re:"states"

[Opportunist]

I'd guess it's more a translation error than a deliberate push towards a "United States of Europe". For the record, "country" translates to:

État (French)
estado (Spanish)
Estado (Portugese)
stat (Norwegian)
stan (Polish)
stato (Italian)
Staat (German)
stat (Romanian)
stat (Danish)
stáit (Irish)
staat (Dutch)
ástand (Icelandic)

There are a few that don't follow that "logic" like Hungarian or Finnish (but then again, they are not related to any of the large language families spoken in Europe), but none of the "weird" ones even remotely resembles "country", so my guess is that the original text is in one of the aforementioned languages and whoever translated it simply picked the word that resembled the original word the closest, without understanding the subtle differences between state and country.

Re:"states"

[Opportunist]

You're in luck, in less than 3 months you get to vote on a new EU parliament.

Re:"states"

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state

Synonyms for state
Synonyms: Noun
commonwealth, country, land, nation, sovereignty (also sovranty)

Re:"states"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure about all of these languages, but in the languages I speak on a regular basis there is a semantical difference between "country" and "state":
state - country
état - pays
staat - land (in both NL en DE)
stan - kraj
strana - durzhava

Re:"states"

[Anonymous Coward]

What did people expect when their countries signed over most of their legislative powers?

Re:"states"

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, "country" translates to: ....

Incorrect. I speak several of those languages, and the translations you show are not for the word "country", they are for the word "state".

The EU is very good at not referring to its members as countries. Instead they always use phrases like "member states". This is highly deliberate.

Re:"states"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, on the powerless parliament, not the unelected council which has both legislative and executive authority. Your best lies are technically true.

Re:"states"

[uvajed_ekil]

I wonder how many citizens consider their country being a "state" in the EU. I know it is the politician's wet dream, and something they lied about would not happen, to have the United States of Europe.

The term state has been used to refer to countries in a generic sense for generations. Deal with it, and don't apply a USA-centric model to this when you know that meaning was not intended. You're reading something into the terminology, incorrectly.

Re:"states"

[ruddk]

Perhaps, I hope I am. :)
But it's the feeling I get from the EU happy politicians that it's what they want.
(It's not that I am not against the EU as such.)

Mislading headline

[GerryHattrick]

Mandatory EU-wide coordination of DST will end. Countries can then choose whether they want it or not. The principle is called 'subsidiarity' and there's no reason why Leavers or Remainers should be offended.

That's silly

[Solandri]

The problem is that people want the time to be synchronized so that sunrise (or sunset) happens around the same time year-round. Unfortunately, that's an astronomical impossibility because the sunrise and sunset times vary both with time of year and with your latitude. Noon (and midnight) do not have this problem. The sun is directly overhead (and directly below) at the exact same time every day in every location.

The "proper" time standard is thus the one which puts noon as close as possible to when the sun is directly overhead. You can't argue that you'd like to have the sun up before 9:30 because that phenomenon is specific to your latitude (and to a lesser extent, how far east/west you are in your time zone). It's silly to require the rest of the world to adopt a time standard which works best for your latitude.

The "correct" solution is not to change the clocks, but for different locations to change their business hours throughout the year.

• Businesses near the equator (where days are noon +/- 6 hours year-round) can keep business hours the same year-round. So say, start 2 hours after sunrise at 8am, end at 4pm.
• At 30 degrees latitude, the days last noon +/- 7 hours in summer, +/- 6 hours in spring/fall, and +/- 5 hours in winter. Businesses there can shift their operating hours one hour ahead in summer (say, 7am to 3pm), keep it at 8-4 during spring and fall, shift it to 9-5 during winter.
• At 50 degrees latitude, the days last noon +/- 8 hours in summer, +/- 6 hours in spring/fall, and +/-4 hours in winter. Businesses there can shift their operating hours two hours ahead in summer (say 6am to 2pm), keep it at 8-4 during spring and fall, shift it to 10-6 during winter.

That keeps sunrise a couple hours before the start of business hours year-round, regardless of your latitude or time of year. Each latitude can tweak this forward or back depending on their preference (higher latitudes will probably prefer start of business to be right around sunrise in winter instead of 2 hours after, to maximize use of the short day). And each business can tweak this forward or back depending on their needs (e.g. businesses delivering food to restaurants will probably want to start a couple hours before sunrise instead of a couple hours after).

Trying to do this by adjusting everyone's clock by the same amount regardless of their latitude is insane.

Re:That's silly

[smoot123]

The "proper" time standard is thus the one which puts noon as close as possible to when the sun is directly overhead.

I think the "proper" thing to do is have 20 hours a day with the day starting at local sunrise. Daylight gets divided into 10 equal-length hours and darkness gets divided into another 10 equal-length hours. How long an "hour" is varies, of course, but we'll get used to it :).

More seriously, what is the argument for keeping DST? Does anyone seriously believe it saves energy? Or is it all, as the OP states, people just like having their clocks read the same value at sunrise every day?

at least in some COUNTRIES - FTFA

[sproketboy]

You fascists.

Re: Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when France bombing Libya and destroying Italian economic interests there qualifies as "defence"? Italy and strong trade ties with Libya, and France wanted in. Italian economy suffered for it.

Please!

[cascadingstylesheet]

Please, let us follow suit in the US. So tired of it.

I can't even list all the annoyances. Here's one I haven't thrown out there before, I get to have the sun in my eyes for a week or two while driving to work, not once, but twice! Once because the days got longer, and again because we fiddled with the clock.

Yay, the kids aren't in the dark at the bus stop anymo ...oh, wait, yeah, they are. Again.

Re:Please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Six months later you don't have the sun in your eyes because the problematic hour is skipped instead of repeated.

It's easy to spot DST inconveniences, but harder to spot inconveniences without DST because we don't experience them. The DST debate is asymmetrical because of this.

Re:Please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, some of us have already voted yes for that (FL).

Doesn't matter, the feds won't have any of it...

Re:Please!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't even list all the annoyances. Here's one I haven't thrown out there before, I get to have the sun in my eyes for a week or two while driving to work, not once, but twice!

Immensely arrogant, guess how long blue collar people have to put up with that same annoyance? Hint: they have to get up earlier to keep civilization running for us.

Re: Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Look pal, I just type what's on the hot sheet my boss Boris hands me every morning. You may not like it but it puts the rubles in my pockets and vodka in my belly. I dont come down to where you work and slap the dicks out of your hands do I? Now I need to go repost this on facebook, so if you will be excuses me, must be goink.

Hiel Putin!

The UK wants to end it.

[Computershack]

I don't know where the article is getting its information from but there is a strong call to end changing and sticking to the summertime schedule of GMT+1 to give light longer in the evenings. It even has strong support in Parliament.

Just split the difference

[Miamicanes]

There's nothing that says timezones HAVE to be exactly one hour apart, and several countries already have timezones that split the difference and lie on a half-hour boundary instead.

30 minutes is enough to give most of the benefit of extra daylight in the evening after work, while reducing the hardship of early-morning darkness to a couple of weeks.

Guaranteed, if the EU splits the difference for Central European time, the US will do the same thing within a year or two (and vice-versa).

Most people don't want to give up summer evening daylight, and a lot of people don't want 9am dawn, but everyone hates clock-changing. Splitting the difference between summer and winter time is a sensible compromise.

Re: Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 1949, when the US War Department renamed itself the Department of Defense without changing its purpose.

Or maybe since 1799, when George Washington wrote, "offensive operations, often times, is the surest, if not the only (in some cases) means of defence".

Standard Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the sky still being bright at night when I need to get to sleep for work in the morning.

I like the sky being light at night when I'm awake.

Have your municipality install street lights then. The rest of us live in the post-Edison, post-(Nikola) Tesla world.

What is this "dark" that people keep speaking of anyway?

It'll be fine! You'll get used to it!

[eepok]

Every time this topic comes up, there's belly-aching about which time should be the permanent time. Late summer brightness or early summer brightness. Here's the thing-- people will complain at decreasing levels as time goes on. You'll get used to whatever change happens.

Re: Useful distractions from EU's real problems

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Funny, tovarish.

It would be great

[prefec2]

Right now it is unclear if this ever will become reality. If they change it then this might be in 2021 at the soonest. A lot of bullshit can happen until then.

about time to end this abomination

[johnrpenner]

somebody has the sense to end this useless barnacle of an abomination — good riddance!