Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

The European Union will once again switch to standard time tonight. This happens despite the fact that 84 percent of Europeans would prefer to completely abandon the foolish and costly practice of changing the clocks twice a year.

I call it costly because it has been proven to cause fatigue, impair memory, concentration, and attention. In addition, people’s reaction times slow down, increasing their likelihood of making mistakes. This raises the risk of accidents and mishaps—and these errors don't improve work quality either.

On the other hand, there is no demonstrated benefit to the clock changes themselves. To understand this, one must be able to distinguish between the act of shifting the clocks back and forth and the impact of time zones on people. Even though daylight saving time might suit people well, its benefits could be achieved simply by a permanent shift to a later time zone—meaning the abandonment of the shift back to standard time.

Despite all these well-known facts, the clocks are still being adjusted. And the reason is none other than the inability of the European Union and its member states to implement a decision that has already been made in 2019.

Therefore, I would like to ask Ursula van der Leyen and the other members of the Commission, as well as the Members of the European Parliament, how they think this inability fosters people’s trust in the Union or its effectiveness in promoting the well-being of its citizens.

And yes. I am well aware that my question is rhetorical, and that every single European knows the answer. And the real answer to my rhetoric certainly doesn’t help promote the good things for which the EU was created.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Is Suffocating Under Double Bureaucracy
EU Decision-Makers Did the Bear a Disservice
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed

Biden's dementia and Trump's speeches may improve European security

The world is in a dire situation, as the upcoming president of the United States appears to be either Donald Trump or Joe Biden. The latter's signs of dementia have become increasingly apparent and have become a hot potato in the politics of the Western superpower, particularly with the so-called Hur report bluntly stating the matter.

Of course, Biden's supporters have launched a counterattack, assuring that the president's memory functions flawlessly and attempting to demonstrate that the report is politically motivated. However, it is clear that the doubt it brings will linger in people's minds, and any minor public slip-up by Biden will significantly affect the less fanatical part of his voters in the future.

However, this does not mean that Donald Trump is returning to the White House. Firstly, he needs support from the U.S. Supreme Court, and secondly, he must somehow convince his voter base throughout the entire election campaign that the undoubtedly fierce accusations of inciting rebellion during the previous elections by his opponent are untrue.

From the perspective of us Europeans, the problem lies in the difficulty of determining which option is better for us - the inherently unpredictable Trump or Biden, who seems physically elderly and appears to be suffering from dementia. And the situation is not improved by Trump's advance mention of his reluctance to unconditionally support Europe if Russia were to invade Ukraine and then shift its focus to another bordering country.

Regarding the latter, I was pleased to note that our future president, Alexander Stubb, understood Donald Trump to be "essentially right" in suggesting that Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own security. While Finland's defense capability is in order, Russia's brutal aggressiveness ultimately cannot be restrained without significant support either from the United States or through a much greater investment in military capability by the major Western European countries - Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.

In that sense, the competition between the two elderly men in the United States for leadership of the country may ultimately awaken decision-makers on our continent and thereby enhance Europe's security. And in the best-case scenario, Biden may have to withdraw his candidacy and be replaced by a younger and hopefully capable alternative who can defeat Trump in the election and, while in office, even reduce the extreme internal division within the Western superpower.

The result could be a militarily strong Europe, supported by a security-conscious United States.

The original thought in Finnish:
Bidenin dementia ja Trumpin puheet saattavat parantaa Euroopan turvallisuutta

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Risk of dementia in the U.S. presidential elections
Military confrontation between China and USA highly probable in near future
Erdogan wants fighter jets, and uses Finland and Sweden to get them