Every year, twice a year, millions of Europeans lose or gain an hour as they change their clocks. This practice, known as daylight saving time (DST), is unpopular, yet it persists. A 2018 EU-wide survey revealed that 84% of European citizens oppose it. Despite this overwhelming opposition and growing concerns from health experts, the practice continues.

Why People Dislike Daylight Saving Time

Changing the clocks every spring and fall can cause major disruptions to people’s daily lives. Health studies show that shifting time can affect the body’s natural rhythm. The sudden change messes with sleep, weakens the immune system, and can make existing health problems worse. Experts also warn that this disruption may increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes shortly after the clocks change.

Daylight saving time was originally introduced during World War I and later revived during the energy crisis of the 1970s. The idea was to save energy by making better use of daylight. However, in the modern age of electricity, digital devices, and constant connectivity, the energy-saving argument is no longer relevant. Ariadna Güell Sans from the Time Use Initiative notes that energy consumption patterns have drastically changed since the system was first implemented. “It no longer helps us save energy,” she said. “It was designed in a different era, before the internet and modern energy use.”

Efforts to End Daylight Saving Time Have Stalled

In 2018, the European Commission put forward a proposal to end the biannual clock changes. The European Parliament supported the plan with strong backing: 410 votes in favor, 192 against. Yet, despite the widespread support, the proposal stalled in the Council of the European Union. The main reason for this setback was disagreement among member states over whether to adopt summer or winter time permanently.

No country wants to make a change alone. The EU insists that any shift in time must be coordinated across all member states to avoid disruption in the single market. If countries were to adopt different time zones, it could create chaos in transport, trade, and communication.

However, hope for a resolution still exists. Lithuania is expected to bring the issue back for discussion during its 2027 presidency of the European Council. A European Commission spokesperson has confirmed that they are still committed to renewing the debate and finding a solution that works for all EU countries.

Time Zones: More Than Just a Clock Change

The debate over whether to keep daylight saving time or scrap it completely is not just about adjusting clocks—it’s deeply political. The decision of whether to adopt permanent summer or winter time is far from simple.

Time zones have long been a reflection of political power. During World War II, Nazi Germany imposed its time zone on occupied France and the Benelux countries. Spain, under the rule of dictator Francisco Franco, aligned itself with Hitler’s Germany and changed its time zone accordingly. That change has never been reversed, and Spain still operates on a time zone that doesn’t match the sun’s natural cycle.

In recent years, time zone issues have played a role in political disputes as well. For instance, Ukraine’s parliament decided not to switch to daylight saving time, in part to avoid aligning with Moscow Standard Time, which is used in Russian-occupied territories in eastern Ukraine.

Even today, time zones clash with solar time in many countries. Güell Sans points out that many Western European countries are out of sync with the sun. In Spain, for example, the sun rises and sets very late, disrupting daily life and causing unnecessary strain on the population. For a country that is often out of sync with the natural rhythm of the day, the negative impact of daylight saving time is compounded.

A New Proposal for Reform—And New Challenges

The Time Use Initiative, a research organization, has proposed a radical reshaping of Europe’s time zones to better align with natural solar time. Under their plan, the clock would be set according to meridians, bringing it more in line with the sun’s position. Here’s what the proposed time zones would look like:

• The UK, France, Spain, and the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) would operate on Western European Time (current GMT).
• Ireland and Portugal would join Iceland in the Azores Time Zone, one hour behind.
• Central European countries, including Greece, would be one hour ahead of GMT.
• Eastern Europe, including the Baltic States, would be two hours ahead of GMT.

The goal of this new system would be to improve health and wellbeing by better aligning society with natural daylight hours. However, this proposal isn’t without its own challenges. For example, Ireland and Northern Ireland would end up in different time zones. This could spark political tension, particularly in a region already sensitive to cross-border issues. A change like this could create new challenges for those living in areas where time zone boundaries don’t align with local realities.

The proposal to reconfigure time zones would also require significant coordination among governments, and it could take years to implement. While it may offer long-term benefits, it also raises numerous questions about the impact on businesses, transport, and daily life across Europe.

The Complexity of Time

Ultimately, the debate over daylight saving time and time zones in Europe is not just about clocks. It’s about identity, history, and politics. Time zones reflect how countries have historically aligned themselves with or against one another. The decision to change or eliminate daylight saving time brings those historical issues back to the surface.

The debate is also about how we define time itself—whether it’s based on the sun’s natural position or on artificial systems designed for economic and political convenience. As more countries reconsider the practice of daylight saving time, the challenge will be finding a solution that balances health concerns, economic interests, and the need for coordination in a continent that’s already divided by political and cultural differences.