Parliament Debates End to Daylight Saving

Parliament Debates End to Daylight Saving

The German parliament, the Bundestag, is set to debate a proposal that could permanently end the bi-annual clock changes, a move largely driven by the far-right AfD party. The proposed legislation, titled “Law for the Abolition of Daylight Saving Time” seeks to establish Central European Time (CET) as the sole legal time across Germany, eliminating the seasonal shifts between Daylight Saving Time and standard time.

The move, while ostensibly rooted in a 2019 European Commission evaluation, raises questions about the political motivations behind its sudden prominence. The Commission’s assessment allowed member states the discretion to either maintain the current system of clock changes or permanently adopt either Daylight Saving Time or standard time. While seemingly a matter of minor bureaucratic adjustment, the timing of the AfD’s initiative, just a week before the next clock change, suggests a deliberate leveraging of public sentiment for political gain.

Crucially, the legislation draws upon a widely criticized 2018 EU-wide survey involving over 4.6 million citizens. While 84% of participants expressed opposition to clock changes, the survey’s online format has consistently been questioned by experts, raising concerns about potential manipulation and a lack of representativeness. Despite these methodological doubts, the proposal appears to capitalize on a broader public dissatisfaction with the seasonal time shifts, a sentiment that independent polls have also confirmed over the years.

The scheduled shift to Winter Time (Standard Time) in October 2025, the last before this legislation could potentially take effect, will see clocks moved back an hour. The debate surrounding the proposal extends beyond mere convenience. Critics argue that the AfD’s push for permanent CET is a cynical attempt to exploit popular discontent and distract from more pressing political issues. Furthermore, the inherent flaws in the data underpinning the justification for the change highlight a disregard for rigorous assessment in policymaking.