PULSE - Europe beyond the beat

Europe

Abolish the time change? The position of EU countries on the proposal

The Spanish proposal to abolish the time change from 2026 reopens a European debate that has never been resolved, with countries divided between economic needs, social rhythms and time zone coherence

by Silvia Martelli (Il Sole 24 Ore) and Borja Negrete (El Confidencial, Spain)

30 October 2025

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The Spanish government's proposal to abolish definitively the time change from 2026 has reopened a dossier that Brussels had long since filed away in its drawers. Behind an apparently technical issue lies one of the most emblematic questions of the functioning of the Union: the difficulty of reconciling different needs, national customs and economic priorities within a common framework. The European countries are in fact divided, between those who fear a fragmentation of time zones and those who would like to shelve a practice considered anachronistic.

Madrid accelerates

Spain has formalised in Brussels a proposal to definitively eliminate the time change as of 2026. The official motivation is scientific and social: studies on energy saving now show marginal effects, while attention is growing for disorders related to biological adaptation. But the move also has a political dimension: in a fragmented Europe, Spain is standing for the leadership of an initiative that touches the daily lives of citizens, relaunching its centrality in European dossiers.

National polls indicate that more than 60 per cent of Spaniards are in favour of a fixed time. It remains to be defined which one: the Sánchez executive is pushing to keep daylight saving time all year round, with brighter days and a social rhythm more suited to the Mediterranean climate and habits.

Europe on the clock

It is in this context that the real game opens. The Spanish proposal, although limited in time, touches a raw nerve of European integration: time synchronisation.

The current time-change regime is laid down in a 2000 directive requiring all EU countries to move their hands twice a year. The principle is one of uniformity: a Europe with different times would risk fragmenting the internal market, complicating rail and air transport, disrupting interconnected electricity networks and creating problems in the financial markets. That is why, as long as the directive remains in force, the Commission calls on states to move only in a coordinated manner.

But co-ordination is exactly what is lacking. In the north, countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark have long been in favour of cancelling the double shift, but demand that daylight saving time - closer to the natural rhythm of light in winter - be retained. For Scandinavian countries, adopting daylight saving time all year round would mean having sunrises after 10 a.m. for long months: a prospect considered impractical for daily life and productivity.

Further south, on the other hand, the requirements are reversed. Spain, Italy, Portugal and to some extent Greece see permanent daylight saving time as an advantage: more light in the evening, lower electricity consumption at peak hours and greater tourist attractiveness. It is 'Mediterranean time', more in tune with the climate and social habits of these countries.

In between, continental Europe - France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria - calls for caution. Here, economic sensitivities prevail over climatic ones. Berlin and Paris fear that a unilateral decision could jeopardise the coherence of the internal market. A different timetable between Spain and Germany, for example, would mean recalibrating interconnected railway timetables, flights, stock exchanges and energy markets. This is not a detail: the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, Euronext and BME Madrid share synchronised trading windows to the minute.

According to European diplomatic sources, it is precisely Germany that is the main political brake on the change. Berlin demands that any abolition should only take place after a comprehensive economic impact study and after at least two thirds of the countries have chosen the same permanent timetable. France, on the other hand, maintains an intermediate position: the 2019 public consultation had shown a clear preference for summer time, but the Elysée has never formalised a definitive line.

In the East, Poland has put the issue back on the agenda during its rotating presidency of the EU Council, supporting the idea of a 'flexible' European decision - i.e. leaving each state the choice of its own permanent time. A solution that, however, Brussels fears as the prelude to an internal 'time zone chaos': the hypothesis that from Lisbon to Vilnius three or four different official hours could accumulate would jeopardise the uniformity of the single market.

In the Eastern bloc, moreover, different sensitivities emerge: Hungary and Romania are in favour of maintaining the current system, while the Czech Republic and Slovakia support an overhaul, but only if shared by the entire Union. Greece defends the traditional time change, fearing that giving up daylight saving time would penalise seaside tourism in the spring months.

*This article is part of the European collaborative journalism project "Pulse"