Between biology, bureaucracy and political deadlock: A look at Europe’s struggle over the “right” time
Introduction: One hour forward, one hour back – and a continent in conflict
On the night of October 25 to 26, 2025, what millions of Europeans have long taken note of with a slight sigh actually happened: The clocks were set back one hour. From 3 a.m. to 2 a.m. – back to what is called Central European Standard Time (CET).
What seems like a banal routine is in truth a political, scientific and societal long-term problem. Hardly any other measure of European integration has caused such much debate, so many studies and so much symbolic politics as the half-yearly shift of the clock. Daylight saving – originally conceived as progress, a sign of technical modernity and a contribution to energy savings – has become a symbol of political paralysis.
Despite majority opposition among the population, despite scientific warnings and despite a clear vote by the European Parliament in 2019 that called for abolition, European clocks continue to tick in the old rhythm.
How did it come to pass that a seemingly simple question – “Should we stay on summer time or switch permanently to standard time?” – has remained unresolved for more than a decade?
The answer lies in a dense web of scientific knowledge, economic interests, national peculiarities and European bureaucracy.
1. How it all began – The hour of the energy savers
The idea of shifting the clock is older than modern Europe. Already in 1784 Benjamin Franklin joked in a letter to the Journal de Paris that one could save candles by getting up earlier. But only the oil crisis in the 1970s turned this into political reality.
In 1973 energy prices exploded. Europe searched feverishly for ways to save electricity. The logical – and popular – measure: If one makes better use of daylight, one must use less artificial lighting in the evening.
Germany introduced summer time in 1980, shortly after France, Italy and Denmark. In 1996 it was harmonised across the EU by a directive. Since then: On the last Sunday in March clocks go forward by one hour, on the last Sunday in October they go back.
But the original justification – energy savings – soon proved to be an illusion. Several studies, including from the Federal Environment Agency and the European Energy Agency, concluded that the saving effect was minimal or even negative. In the morning more heating is needed, in the evening more cooling.
What remained was the belief in the feeling of quality of life: long summer evenings, barbecue parties, daylight after work.
2. Between sun and system – Why standard time is the “right” time
Physically, standard time is that when the highest position of the sun is at noon. That is the natural time zone to which our biological rhythm – the circadian cycle – is aligned.
Chronobiologists such as Prof. Till Rönneberg (LMU Munich) and Dr. Albrecht Vorster (University Clinic Bern) have been warning for years about the “artificial shift” caused by daylight saving time.
“In summer time we live in the wrong time zone,” says Rönneberg.
“We act as if we lived in St. Petersburg, even though we live in Munich.”
The consequence: a chronic social jet-lag. People must get up when their inner clock is still asleep. The discrepancy between internal clock and external time leads to sleep deprivation, concentration problems and, in the long-term, an increased risk for cardiovascular diseases.
A study by Stanford University (2025) shows that a permanent standard time would measurably reduce the frequency of strokes and obesity. The rate of heart attacks also rises significantly in the days following the clock change.
Nevertheless, summer time remains popular – for purely subjective reasons. It extends the day “feeling”, it shifts social life into the evening. It feels “brighter”, though biologically it is darker.
3. Europe between time zones – A political dilemma
The European Commission wanted to end the daylightsaving chaos long ago. In 2018 it conducted an online consultation with over 4.6 million participants. The result was clear: 84 % of respondents were in favour of abolishing the seasonal shift.
The majority preferred permanent summer time.
Then Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker in 2019 proposed legislation: From 2021 each country should be able to decide whether to adopt permanent summer or standard time.
What sounded like an act of national self-determination led to the opposite: gridlock.
As soon as it became clear that each country could decide for itself, alarm bells rang in European capitals. Spain warned of dark winter mornings, Poland of overly early sunrises; France feared economic desynchronisation with neighbours; Germany wanted a unified time zone with Austria and the Benelux.
In short: nobody wanted to deviate, but nobody wanted to commit.
The result was a classic Brussels-style compromise by non-decision. The directive vanished in the committees, postponed, shelved, forgotten.
4. The silent damage – What the time change really costs
Politicians seldom measure what is not immediately visible. But the damage caused by changing clocks is subtle, cumulative – and huge.
Sleep specialists speak of a collective disturbance of the day-night rhythm, comparable to the mini-jet-lag of a flight. Children, shift workers and people with pre-existing conditions are particularly at risk.
According to the Robert Koch Institute, in the days after the March shift:
- the number of work accidents rises by about 8 %
- traffic accidents with personal injury increase by 6 %
- hospital admissions due to cardiovascular diseases increase by 4 %
In addition, there are economic effects. A study by the ifo Institute Munich (2023) estimated the productivity loss from fatigue and concentration problems in the week of the shift at up to €450 million in Germany.
And yet the issue remains “too small” for governments to take seriously.
5. Why humans are not clocks
Our biological pacemaker sits deep in the brain: the suprachiasmatic nucleus in the hypothalamus. It controls hormone release, metabolism and sleep cycles. The most important external cue is daylight – not the clock.
When the sun rises too late, this rhythm is thrown off. The inner clock lags behind the external time.
Chronotype research shows:
- Early birds (“larks”) benefit somewhat from summer time.
- Night owls (“owls”) suffer more.
Since the majority of the population are “owls”, the overall societal balance is negative.
Prof. Christian Cajochen, Head of the Centre for Chronobiology in Basel, puts it this way:
“Summer time forces millions of people into a daily rhythm that biologically belongs to a time zone further east. Over time this is like waking up slightly hungover every day.”
6. Between power, market and morality – Why politics is not reacting
Why does such a clearly judged problem remain unresolved?
The answer lies in a paradoxical combination of technocracy and symbolic politics.
The European Commission has formally done its homework. But member states shy away from a decision with noticeable everyday consequences – for example one less hour of evening light.
Politically the issue is unappealing: it affects everyone, excites no one and divides opinions. No politician wins elections with “standard time”.
Added to this are economic interests. Leisure, tourism and event industries benefit from long summer evenings. Rail, air transport, IT systems and trade would have to make adjustments if the shift were abolished.
The argument that the technical change today is trivial is little heard – although true.
7. When technology is already ahead
While politicians debate hours, software systems have long since learned to handle time zones, leap seconds and changes.
International servers, cloud services or mobile time-tracking systems – they calculate automatically in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) and compensate global differences.
An example is the company TimeSpin in Bremen, which with its haptic time-tracking cube and online portal shows how time-tracking works across times and places. Even if each European country had its own time, systems like TimeSpin could capture times correctly from Tokyo to Turin.
Technically the issue is solved. Politically it is the opposite.
8. The European paradox – Integration without synchronisation
The European Union is in many ways a model of success – internal market, freedom of movement, monetary union. Yet it is also a web of 27 time-zone interests.
The debate over daylight saving time is a case study in the limits of integration.
A uniform internal market needs synchronised business hours. Different time regimes would complicate logistics, stock exchanges and transport.
In 2020 the European Transport Ministers’ Conference warned:
“A diverging time-order would present considerable operational challenges for the European transport sector.”
Yet the current regulation is a relic of the post-war era when time zones were still national symbols.
The debate shows how difficult it is for Europe to mediate between scientific reason, political unity and cultural identity.
9. Health as a location factor
More and more experts are calling for the debate to be framed in terms of health policy.
Sleep deprivation costs productivity, quality of life and health systems billions. The World Health Organization now counts chronic sleep deprivation among the main risk factors of modern societies.
A permanent standard time would save energy, money and years of life according to chronobiologists.
German sleep researcher Thomas Kantermann suggests aligning school and work start times more strongly with the natural light-dark rhythm.
“We don’t need to extend the day – we need to distribute it better.”
Scandinavian countries are already experimenting with flexible school start times and daylight-based work models.
10. The societal factor – Why we cling to evening light
Despite all scientific evidence the emotional attachment to summer time remains strong. It stands for leisure, joy of life, freedom.
Psychologists call this a classic case of cognitive dissonance: We know something is unhealthy, but we like it anyway.
Summer time creates the illusion of having more of the day. It shifts social life into the evening – a time highly valued in Western societies.
This cultural imprint is deeply rooted. Even the Industrial Revolution sharply separated work and leisure; summer time artificially extended the latter.
That makes it a symbol of modern lifestyle – and a stumbling block for any reform.
11. A view across the Atlantic – How other countries respond
The United States is even more fragmented on the time question than Europe. There the states decide for themselves. Some, like Arizona or Hawaii, forgo daylight saving altogether. Others, like Florida, want it permanently.
In 2022 the US Senate passed the so-called Sunshine Protection Act, which aimed to introduce permanent summer time – but it stalled in the House of Representatives.
Similar scenarios appear in Australia, Canada and Russia. Iceland has lived without the change for decades. According to studies its population is more rested and productive.
This shows: The problem is global, but system inertia is just as large.
12. A question of sovereignty – and identity
Time is more than physics. It is politics. It structures power and belonging.
The decision over a time zone is therefore also a question of national identity.
Poland, for example, orients itself eastwards; Portugal westwards. France, geographically on Greenwich Time, has remained on Central European Time since 1940 – a legacy of German occupation.
Such historic ruptures make the introduction of a unified time-regime a cultural minefield.
13. Economic perspective – Light and shadow of long evenings
For many industries summer time is simply lucrative.
- Retail records higher revenues in the evening hours.
- Gastronomy profits from more outdoor seats and longer frequentation.
- Tourism gains from increased attraction for city breaks and leisure activities.
These sectors form a silent but influential lobby against abolition.
By contrast stand health, education and transport associations which point to the risks.
Yet their voices fade in the rhythm of everyday politics where economic benefit always sounds louder than biological sense.
14. Media and opinion formation – The rhythm of public debate
The media coverage follows a fixed cycle:
- March: “Clocks go forward” – experts warn.
- October: “Clocks go back” – experts explain.
- November to February: silence.
This episodic perception inhibits a sustainable political debate. Every government delays the decision by a legislature – knowing it brings neither votes nor crisis.
15. A Europe of hours – The hypothetical scenario
What if each country actually chose its own time?
Economically it would be manageable. Modern systems – from stock exchange servers to time-tracking tools like TimeSpin – could handle it.
But psychologically it would be a signal of disintegration.
A Europe that cannot even agree on time sends no image of unity.
The time zone is the invisible backbone of the internal market. Its dissolution would be a symbol of political fragmentation.
16. Future scenarios – Three ways out of the time-trap
Scenario 1 – Permanent standard time (CET)
→ Health-oriented, biologically correct, politically rational.
Disadvantage: Darker summer evenings, resistance from leisure industries.
Scenario 2 – Permanent summer time (CEST)
→ Popular, economically attractive, but medically risky.
Scenario 3 – Flexible zone regulation with technical synchronisation
→ Each country chooses freely, IT-systems pair globally.
Most likely model – but a symbol of political impotence.
17. The role of technology – When algorithms keep the beat
In a networked world time already plays a different role.
Servers, data centres, exchanges – they all operate with UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).
In this digital logic the daylight saving shift is a human problem, not a system problem.
Time-tracking solutions like TimeSpin already compensate global differences.
A developer in Berlin, a lawyer in Tokyo, a designer in New York – all can work synchronously because software knows local time.
The real world lags behind the digital one.
18. Why the political stalemate is dangerous
Political inactivity has costs. Not only health-wise, but symbolically.
The European Union once wanted to prove it listens to its citizens.
But on the daylight saving issue Europe stands still – in the truest sense of the word.
— End of article —
Top comments (0)