Slashdot Mirror


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online survey, where an unexpected 80 percent of respondents said the practice of changing the clock twice a year was outdated.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.

108 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Thank goodness by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    for constantly updated tzdata files.

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

  2. UK by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:UK by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:UK by Mittengrabber · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:UK by mccalli · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:UK by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:UK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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/

    7. Re:UK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I hope not.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:UK by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    9. Re:UK by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:UK by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:UK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re: UK by Miamicanes · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:UK by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    15. Re:UK by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:UK by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:UK by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      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...

    18. Re:UK by hoofie · · Score: 1

      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.

    19. Re:UK by hoofie · · Score: 1

      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.

    20. Re:UK by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    21. Re:UK by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:UK by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. UK? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:UK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:UK? by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  4. What a bunch of Cnuts by nagora · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by r2kordmaa · · Score: 2

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

    2. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    4. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by nagora · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck off?

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    5. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by DamonHD · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    7. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by DamonHD · · Score: 1

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

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    8. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Fuck off?

      Well yeah that is an option too.

    10. Re:What a bunch of Cnuts by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  5. Permanent DST is evil by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    1. Re:Permanent DST is evil by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Permanent DST is evil by hazardPPP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Permanent DST is evil by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    5. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Permanent DST is evil by acoustix · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    8. Re:Permanent DST is evil by RobinH · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    9. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Permanent DST is evil by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Permanent DST is evil by acoustix · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    12. Re:Permanent DST is evil by j-beda · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:Permanent DST is evil by mjwx · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Luthair · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Permanent DST is evil by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Permanent DST is evil by acoustix · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    18. Re:Permanent DST is evil by acoustix · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    19. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Mordaximus · · Score: 1

      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

    20. Re:Permanent DST is evil by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Permanent DST is evil by thegarbz · · Score: 1

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

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

    22. Re: Permanent DST is evil by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    23. Re:Permanent DST is evil by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    24. Re: Permanent DST is evil by houghi · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    25. Re:Permanent DST is evil by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    26. Re:Permanent DST is evil by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    27. Re:Permanent DST is evil by 31eq · · Score: 1

      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".

    28. Re:Permanent DST is evil by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    29. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

    30. Re:Permanent DST is evil by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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?

    31. Re:Permanent DST is evil by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      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.

    32. Re: Permanent DST is evil by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re: Permanent DST is evil by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      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.

    34. Re:Permanent DST is evil by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    35. Re:Permanent DST is evil by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    36. Re:Permanent DST is evil by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    37. Re:Permanent DST is evil by RobinH · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    38. Re:Permanent DST is evil by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

  6. UK still getting a vote? by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    return 0; }
    1. Re:UK still getting a vote? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. Re:Useful distractions from EU's real problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    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

  8. Surprise! by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Surprise! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Since this post has been on top for a while by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Since this post has been on top for a while by jbengt · · Score: 1

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

  10. Re:Compromise by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

    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.

  11. they created a mess by sad_ · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:they created a mess by zekica · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:they created a mess by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. "states" by ruddk · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:"states" by nagora · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:"states" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:"states" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:"states" by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:"states" by ruddk · · Score: 1

      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.)

  13. Re: But the survey was not representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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!

  14. Mislading headline by GerryHattrick · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. That's silly by Solandri · · Score: 2
    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.

    1. Re:That's silly by smoot123 · · Score: 1

      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?

  16. Re:Compromise by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. at least in some COUNTRIES - FTFA by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    You fascists.

  18. Please! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Re: DST is great! by jbengt · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. The UK wants to end it. by Computershack · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  21. Just split the difference by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. It'll be fine! You'll get used to it! by eepok · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. It would be great by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    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.

  24. Re: You do you by hoofie · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. about time to end this abomination by johnrpenner · · Score: 1

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