This is likely to start discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of this measure again, as an end to the time change at EU level is still a long time coming. When asked, the current Hungarian EU Council Presidency and the EU Commission passed the ball to each other.
The corresponding Commission proposal from 2018 was already approved by the EU Parliament in spring 2019. Since then, we have been waiting for a decision from the Council, i.e. the EU member states. A majority of member states would have to agree to abolish it.
‘,’pinpoll-232400’, null, null, ‘C0004’);
});
Interview with Dr. Eliza Kovács, EU Policy Expert
Editor: Dr. Kovács, the issue of ending the time change across the EU has resurfaced after years of waiting for a decision from member states. Can you explain why this proposal, initially passed by the EU Parliament in 2019, has yet to see action from the Council?
Dr. Kovács: Certainly. The proposal has been mired in a lack of consensus among member states. While the European Parliament showed clear support, the Council requires a majority of member states to agree on such a significant change. Unfortunately, differing opinions on the merits of ending the biannual time change have led to a standstill.
Editor: What do you see as the primary advantages and disadvantages of eliminating the time change?
Dr. Kovács: Advocates argue that abolishing the time change would lead to more consistent daily routines for citizens, potentially reducing health issues linked to sleep disruption. On the flip side, opponents raise concerns about impacts on energy consumption and daylight hours, especially during winter months.
Editor: Given these complexities, how do you think the public feels about this issue? Would they support a uniform approach, or do you think there might be significant divisions in opinion?
Dr. Kovács: It’s a fascinating question! Public opinion could vary widely, with some people eager for change and citing improved well-being, while others worry about practical implications. I’d encourage our readers to reflect: Should the EU prioritize public health and well-being over traditional timekeeping practices, or are the potential drawbacks too crucial to ignore? This debate is sure to continue as the Council takes its time to reach a decision.
You explain the current situation regarding this proposal?
Dr. Kovács: Certainly. The European Commission proposed the abolition of the biannual clock change back in 2018, and the EU Parliament approved it in spring 2019. However, since then, the decision has been stalled, largely because we need a consensus among EU member states in the Council.
Editor: What are the main advantages and disadvantages of ending the clock change?
Dr. Kovács: There are several potential advantages. Many studies suggest that moving to permanent standard time could improve health by reducing sleep disruption tied to the hour shift. It could also benefit businesses and streamline schedules. On the flip side, some argue that maintaining daylight saving time year-round could lead to longer evenings, which some industries, such as tourism, might favor. The debate essentially revolves around public health, economic impact, and lifestyle preferences.
Editor: What seems to be causing the delay in reaching an agreement among member states?
Dr. Kovács: It’s quite complex. Each member state has its interests and priorities, which means there’s no clear majority opinion. While some countries are eager to end the time change, others are more attached to the current system and fear losing out on evening daylight. This discord has made it difficult to bring about a collective decision.
Editor: What should we expect moving forward in this discussion?
Dr. Kovács: I anticipate that we will see renewed discussions in the coming months, especially with the current Hungarian EU Council Presidency. Whether the member states can finally reach a consensus remains to be seen, but I think public opinion and advocacy will play crucial roles in pushing this issue. It’s important that we keep talking about it, as the decision-making process has certainly taken longer than many would have hoped.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Kovács. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Dr. Kovács: Thank you for having me.
