Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
One Thing We Can Agree With The Eussr On?
31 Answers
https:/
Is there any reason not to go with perpetual BST?
Is there any reason not to go with perpetual BST?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Imagine if Belgium and Germany didn't change the system, but France and the Netherlands did, for example."
It wouldn't really be a problem, though, would it. The USA has four time zones. You can go on a journey there of just a few miles and have to change your watch. The UK's time is different to mainland Europe. Some countries which are similar in longitude adopt different times. So long as everyone knows what time it is wherever they happen to be that's all that matters.
It wouldn't really be a problem, though, would it. The USA has four time zones. You can go on a journey there of just a few miles and have to change your watch. The UK's time is different to mainland Europe. Some countries which are similar in longitude adopt different times. So long as everyone knows what time it is wherever they happen to be that's all that matters.
Quite right, jd.
The railways were instrumental in standardising time across the country. Prior to that each town kept its own clock with noon coinciding with the time the sun was at its highest . There was considerable resistance to "railway time" as the first country-wide standard time was called and some towns and villages equipped public clocks with two minute hands - one showing local time and the other "railway time",
I wouldn't advocate going back to that but there is no reason why adjacent countries need to adopt the same time. Spain and Portugal differ by one hour (unsurprising as much of Portugal lies to the west of the south west coast of Ireland). For that matter there is an argument for Spain to adopt UTC rather than UTC+1 as much of the country lies to the west of the Greenwich Meridian.
The railways were instrumental in standardising time across the country. Prior to that each town kept its own clock with noon coinciding with the time the sun was at its highest . There was considerable resistance to "railway time" as the first country-wide standard time was called and some towns and villages equipped public clocks with two minute hands - one showing local time and the other "railway time",
I wouldn't advocate going back to that but there is no reason why adjacent countries need to adopt the same time. Spain and Portugal differ by one hour (unsurprising as much of Portugal lies to the west of the south west coast of Ireland). For that matter there is an argument for Spain to adopt UTC rather than UTC+1 as much of the country lies to the west of the Greenwich Meridian.
I like changing the clocks by 1 hour. The further north you live, the more it matters. It is such a relief to wake-up to a bit more daylight and it means e.g. children walking to school (they do round here) have a bit of light. I don't, definitely don't, want to stick to the same clock all year. Others have given good and sufficient arguments not to change from the system we currently have. When I lived in France the clocks changed the same time as in UK, so we were always an hour different. No problem.
"Switching to permanent BST would be a belated triumph for France - enfin, mes amis?"
I don't think so, jno. As I understand it the proposal is to simply stop changing the clocks in Spring and Autumn. Europe currently has three time zones. The GMT/BST regime is adopted by the UK, Ireland and Portugal. Whatever of those two is adopted by the UK (if it goes along with this proposal) I imagine the rest of Europe will still maintain one (Central European Time)and two (Eastern European Time) hours difference.
I don't think so, jno. As I understand it the proposal is to simply stop changing the clocks in Spring and Autumn. Europe currently has three time zones. The GMT/BST regime is adopted by the UK, Ireland and Portugal. Whatever of those two is adopted by the UK (if it goes along with this proposal) I imagine the rest of Europe will still maintain one (Central European Time)and two (Eastern European Time) hours difference.
Some ***head and a load of Germans have decided that this is what the rest of Europe will do.
https:/
\\Following an online consultation, which received 4.6 million responses from across all 28 EU countries, the European Commission has revealed 84% want to abolish the act of daylight saving.// 4.6 million, well, thats it then.
\\For example, roughly three million Germans took part in the consultation (3.79% of the country's population); but less than 15,000 UK citizens participated (0.02% of the UK population) and only around 8,000 Romanians gave their view (0.04% of the country's population).//.................. 3 million Germans.. 15k UK citizens.
https:/
\\Following an online consultation, which received 4.6 million responses from across all 28 EU countries, the European Commission has revealed 84% want to abolish the act of daylight saving.// 4.6 million, well, thats it then.
\\For example, roughly three million Germans took part in the consultation (3.79% of the country's population); but less than 15,000 UK citizens participated (0.02% of the UK population) and only around 8,000 Romanians gave their view (0.04% of the country's population).//.................. 3 million Germans.. 15k UK citizens.
GMT is the correct "natural" time for the UK - solar midday at Noon 'oclock, half the day's daylight before noon and half after it all year round. As I understand it, the original justification for BST was not to be two hours out of step with mainland Europe during the summer when their clock went forward an hour. After the EU's change of policy/regulations any country, including the UK, can decide its own time zone for the whole of the year. Post Brexit the UK can in any case do what it wants, stick to either GMT or BST all year round or continue the current farce of a system of swapping time zones twice a year.
"NJ, the OP (to which I was responding) suggests going onto BST permanently. This is the Paris Mean Time originally mooted as the world's yardstick."
Indeed, jno. I'm not disputing that. I'm just not sure how the UK would implement this directive (if indeed it does). I'm interested that, in another thread, it was explained that millions of people across Europe "responded" in this consultation, whereas only 15,000 people in the UK did. I can't say I'm surprised because today was the day I learned such a consultation had taken place.
Indeed, jno. I'm not disputing that. I'm just not sure how the UK would implement this directive (if indeed it does). I'm interested that, in another thread, it was explained that millions of people across Europe "responded" in this consultation, whereas only 15,000 people in the UK did. I can't say I'm surprised because today was the day I learned such a consultation had taken place.
We'll be out before they implement it.
An unchanging time zone would work if society changed what time they did things instead. Being retired I'm less affected than I could be. I can't persuade society when to do things but I can run to my own timetable and ensure overlap between when society opens and closes things, for example, and when I want them open.
Seems easier to stick with what we have. In the absence of monthly clock changes, two a year is tolerable.
An unchanging time zone would work if society changed what time they did things instead. Being retired I'm less affected than I could be. I can't persuade society when to do things but I can run to my own timetable and ensure overlap between when society opens and closes things, for example, and when I want them open.
Seems easier to stick with what we have. In the absence of monthly clock changes, two a year is tolerable.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.