Tobias Ellwood MP advances the case for abandonding the silly ritual of putting the clocks forward an hour to BST in March and then back an hour to GMT again in October over at ConHome.
AFAICS, the only upside to this ritual is to provide us with a brilliant pub-quiz type question ("Which is the longest month?"), and I am pretty much sold on the idea of leaving our clocks permanently at BST. To be fair, the only way to find out whether the advantages outweigh any disadvantages (and there must be some - perhaps there'll be more people throwing in the towel if they have to go to work in the dark for several months in winter, but we won't know until we've tried) is just to leave our clocks at BST for a year or two, see what happens and then maybe have a vote on it. Or have a vote on it first. But it must be worth serious consideration.
UPDATE: Re 1968 - 72, see the comments to this post.
Anways, Denis Cooper, who knows about stuff, wades in (on a later thread):
As I have pointed out in a detailed comment on Mr Ellwood's article, this is a matter of EU law - Directive 2000/84/EC - which cannot be changed unilaterally by the UK government.
The UK government does not have the freedom to do what Mr Ellwood wants, which is to move clocks forward by one hour for the whole of the year, unless it also moves them forward by an additional hour for the agreed period of summer time:
"Article 1: For the purposes of this Directive "summer-time period" shall mean the period of the year during which clocks are put forward by 60 minutes compared with the rest of the year."
The concluding passages of my comment may seem harsh, but I'm fed up to the back teeth with UK politicians, especially Tory politicians, abusing their positions of trust by deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of the public about the EU:
"If Mr Ellwood is unaware that this matter which so greatly exercises him is subject to existing EU law, which cannot be changed unilaterally by the UK, then he's unfit to be a government minister. On the other hand, if he is aware of the EU law but he deliberately chooses not draw the attention of readers to its existence, then he is unfit to be an MP, let alone a government minister."
I stand by that.
Dismayed
1 hour ago
19 comments:
Errrrr - wasn't year long "summer time" tried already? 1968-72?
Anon, indeed it was, and Tobias' article mentions it. And in which year did we join the Common Market?
I accept that Directive 2000/84 can't have been in place by then, but quite possibly one of its precursors.
Not that I particularly care about the residents of Edinburgh you understand but at the moment the sun doesn't rise until 8:45 in December mornings at the moment. Putting the clocks permanently forward one hour would make it mid-morning before the sun gets up.
How the pro-change lobby are spinning that as a plus for road safety is beyond me.
The UK has to do what is best for the UK as a whole - it may be that in Scotland the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (and the original article alludes to this), in which case Scotland is perfectly entitled to stick to the BST/GMT system.
"The UK has to do what is best for the UK as a whole" is usually code for "The UK has to do what is best for London."
D, if seven million people in Greater London outvote five million people in Scotland, is that so terrible?
It's also an East-West thing - Lowestoft and Londonderry are about nine degrees of longitude apart, which equates to a time difference of about thirty-six minutes.
Maybe we should base the whole thing on what's best for Manchester or something?
It was tried some years back, it was a success as far as I was concerned. However it was abandoned because of concerns about the danger of children walking to school in the mornings. I can not remember if accidents went up or not. Today I suspect very few children walk to school anymore so may be worth another try.
"...it was abandoned because of concerns about the danger of children walking to school in the mornings."
Children still do that? Clearly, we aren't selling enough SUVs and people carriers... ;)
Something in the back of my mind says it was the Scots who scuppered it.
I also note I am totally illiterate; I wrote "danger of children" instead of "danger to children".
As your heading suggests, it's just a move to get us onto Berlin Time, or CET as it is known. Why the French put up with being on Berlin Time and not Paris Time is a mystery to me and why the Spanish are on it is another mystery. As the man said on Con Home, all that the government are effectively trying to do is get us to get up an hour earlier, which could be done by all government offices starting an hour earlier. The 9.00 start is a relative innovation AFAIC. The Civil Service lunch break is (or was until recently) still from 12 to 1 o'clock.
Anti, so it 'worked' then, back in 68-72?
JM, a lot kids do, especially if they go to a nearby primary.
B, the whole EU (except UK, Portugal) seems to be one time zone, and in terms of East to West, CET is closer to the middle than Paris Time (which is presumably their name for GMT).
"B, the whole EU (except UK, Portugal)": wot, no Ireland?
P.S. According to a letter in yesterday's Telegraph, Paris ran on London Time, rather than Berlin Time, until 1940. The Netherlands ran on London + 20 minutes, says the same letter, until the same year.
D, yes, and Ireland. Sorry. Now, remind me what happened to France in 1940...
is subject to existing EU law, which cannot be changed unilaterally by the UK
We are one of the largest net contributors to EU funds (second after Germany?) and a nuclear power. Thus, the application of all EU laws within the UK can be changed unilaterally by the UK at any time, subject to normal Parliamentary procedure of course.
I also note I am totally illiterate; I wrote "danger of children" instead of "danger to children".
These days, "danger of children" may be appropriate as well.
abandonding the silly ritual of putting the clocks forward an hour to BST in March and then back an hour to GMT again in October
My preferred solution is to put the clocks forward an hour at 2pm and back an hour at 2am daily. Result: bright mornings, bright evenings, an hour less at work and an hour extra in bed every day :-)
Ed, not much to disagree with there :)
"Now, remind me what happened to France in 1940..."
Which is why I'm amazed they've stuck with it (Berlin Time). CET was already Berlin Time when the EU stopped at the Iron Curtain and Berlin wasn't even in the EU!
B, East Germany was more or less in the EU because West Germany gave it all sorts of of subsidies and favourable import treatment.
Of course we don't actually save any daylight, we just shift it about.
Surely it's not beyond the wit of the Scots to open schools and workplaces etc an hour later during the winter if it is too cold and dark? Isn't that what local/regional govt should be about?
Equally, those who (like me) want as much of the sun as possible in the summer months could just get out of bed earlier to enjoy it.
Or....
We could tilt the Earth's axis?
No time zones or seasons for everyone. Go near the poles and it gets colder, nearer the equator and its warmer. Daybreak around 7am, sunset around 7pm. Globally, everywhere the same thing for all.
And its not a new idea either (short YouTube clip)
Apparently London tried it back in 1961. From reports of the time, it seems they had a really great summer and lots of street parties.
Post a Comment