The UK on CET debate

I had hoped to post this article when the news was current, but was unfortunately extremely busy, and had little to no time recently. Nonetheless, in this article, I give my take on the debate regarding moving Greenwich Meridian Time (GMT) and British Summer Time (BST) an hour forward respectively, so that the UK would in effect use Central European Time (CET) in winter, and Central European Summer Time (CEST) in summer.

GMT (also known as Western European Time or WET) and UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) are identical for practical purposes, the difference is negligible (only a fraction of a second), and the same applies for BST (also known as Western European Summer Time or WEST) and GMT+1. Similarly, CET can be regarded as equivalent to UTC+1, and CEST as equivalent to UTC+2 for practical purposes.

Throughout this article, I will be referring to UTC only to avoid ambiguity, and because UTC (not GMT) has been the main reference for time worldwide since 1972.  Having said that, one can still use GMT as a synonym for UTC, BST as a synonym for UTC+1, etc.

A brief history

Between 1968 and 1971, the British government experimentally put the UK on UTC+1 all year. The benefits and drawbacks were disputed, with the UK Parliament saying that they unable to quantify the advantages or disadvantages, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) were in favour of changing to UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2 in summer, but outdoor workers and residents especially in Scotland (and Northern Ireland) were against.  In the end, the UK parliament voted to end this experiment in 1971.  Since the 1990s, and especially in the 2000s, whether to move all or part of the UK to UTC+1 and UTC+2 has been debated.

As well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents who continues to back the change as they state there are safety benefits to the change, the campaign organisation 10:10, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 10% in 2010, also backs a change to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer.  10:10's Lighter Later campaign is concerned primarily with the environmental benefits, and states that the change could save energy and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 500,000 t every year. More on the Lighter Later campaign can be found here.

In October 2010, there was a private member's bill to move to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, which was later passed by 90 votes to 10 in parliament.  However, earlier this month, the coalition government declared that "the necessary consensus is not present" for them to support the time zone change (the Scottish Government opposed the change).  Indeed, any change is unlikely unless the government supports the change, or if the public demands the change, or both.  In the end, the time zone change was not included in the UK government's tourism strategy.

The debate on the UK adopting UTC+1 and UTC+2, is going to run and run for many years to come.

The entire UK in UTC+1 in winter, UTC+2 in summer?

This is exactly what was proposed in the private member's bill to adopt "Single/Double Summer Time". What this means is that the UK would adopt UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2  in summer.

The advantages of this is that evenings would be lighter, if you are travelling from London to Paris by train then you no longer need to change the clock. Same applies if you are travelling anywhere in Europe which is on UTC+1 in winter, and UTC+2 in summer.

The disadvantages are that mornings would be darker, especially in Scotland which is nearer the North Pole.  Hence the opposition in Scotland, especially from those who work outdoors in mornings (although the number of farmers has declined). If one drives this is not so much of a problem, but if one walks or works in the early morning, then one has to be careful.

But on the other hand, a Policy Studies Institute study concludes that adopting UTC+1 and UTC+2 would in fact benefit Scotland more than the rest of the UK.  There was also a survey commissioned by npower which found that the Scots surveyed narrowly favoured the change, but (as mentioned earlier) the Scottish Government opposed moving to UTC+1 and UTC+2, as reported here.

If the UK were to adopt UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, perhaps UTC+1 can be referred to colloquially as GMT or "the new GMT" and UTC+2 as BST or "the new BST".

England and Wales only in UTC+1 or UTC+2?

Given the complaints, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland, an alternative is to only move England or Wales to UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, and Scotland (and Ireland) can stay on UTC in winter and UTC+1 in summer.  A leading historian, Alistair Horne, says that Scotland can remain on its own "tundra time".

This means that England and Wales can benefit from the brighter evenings as part of being in UTC+1 and UTC+2, and Scotland and Ireland can stay in UTC and UTC+1 and therefore not worry so much about the darker mornings.  There could still be complaints from those in Northern England however about the mornings, but on the other hand, most of Northern England is further away from the North Pole than Scotland.

This also means that one would have to adjust the clocks whenever travelling from Scotland to England, or from Ireland or Scotland to Wales for example (instead of between France and the UK, as at present). This is because there would be two time zones for the UK, although this can be countered by noting that countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and Russia manage with multiple time zones (which can also be used as a reason why Europe can manage with multiple time zones too).

Could Britain (but not Ireland) move to UTC+0:30 and UTC+1:30?

As a compromise, Britain (but not Ireland) could move on to UTC+0:30 in winter and UTC+1:30 in summer.  Those who would suggest this idea would probably cite India as an example, as India are on UTC+5:30 all year round (India does not apply daylight saving time in the summer).

With this compromise, people travelling from the Britain to Ireland would then have to adjust their clock by 30 min backwards, or from the Britain to France, Germany, etc would have to adjust their clocks by 30 min forwards instead of 1 h as at present.

Could France and Spain (and others) move to UTC and UTC+1?

Instead of the UK moving onto UTC+1 in winter and UTC+2 in summer, an alternative is for France and Spain to change back to UTC in winter and UTC+1 in summer, as well as for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg to do the same. This would align the time zones to the longitude meridian lines more closely, and this means the legal time zones would correspond more closely to the physical geographical time zones.

The problem is that instead of just one country changing, France, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg would need to change. That is a lot of countries, and there is no guarantee that all, or even any, would agree with moving from UTC+1 and UTC+2, to UTC and UTC+1.

A variation of this alternative is for France and Spain alone to change to UTC and UTC+1, while Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg remain on UTC+1 and UTC+2. Again this means that France and Spain would both need to change and there is no guarantee that both, either, or any would agree to this change.

Some suggest that France and Spain should be in the same time zone as the UK, as stated here.

Some thoughts

I don't mind one way or the other, whether one of the proposals mentioned above are adopted, or if the European time zones remain as they are now. Having said that, I do like the idea of being able to travel from Paris or Lille to London without having to adjust clocks. The idea of brighter evenings does not sound bad either.

It is worth noting that the proposal to move clocks forward 1 hour permanently in winter, and 2 hours in summer, has nothing to do with the EU, and has nothing to do with metrication either.  But there is politics involved when deciding which time zone to be on, not only geography.

What are your thoughts?  Discuss, and feel free to vote on the poll.