© REUTERS / Peter Nicholis

In her own statement to the British Parliament on Thursday, Prime Minister Theresa May admitted that Brexit is a “frustrating process.”  That’s some understatement. After more than two years of trying to thrash out a deal with Brussels, many now believe the draft proposal she’s secured is already dead in the water. Whether Leaver or Remainer, this plan has pleased neither side.

The decision by Dominic Raab, the minister who was supposedly in charge of the Brexit process, to quit government set the scene for a chaotic Thursday in Westminster. More resignations, including that of fellow Cabinet minister Esther McVey, followed.

But whatever you think of Theresa May, her resilience in the face of such intense opposition from left, right, and center, is remarkable. She faced down her critics in Parliament, stressing time and again that this was the best Brexit deal the United Kingdom could hope to get. Then she held a press conference in Downing Street insisting she would carry on as prime minister.

On Friday morning she took to the airwaves for a radio phone-in, taking calls from members of the public. With so little support in Parliament, is it any wonder that she is appealing directly to British citizens to get behind her and her Brexit deal? As one person who played a key role in the winning Leave campaign confided to me, May’s office in Number 10 Downing Street has been running “an excellent PR operation. This is Theresa May—strong and stable,” they said.

Ever-Present Danger

But the danger for May and her government is ever-present. A no-confidence vote in her premiership from the Tory right looks like it could be triggered at any moment. Lead Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, who heads the euroskeptic European Research Group (ERG) has submitted his letter calling for her to go. Other Tory backbenchers are now following suit.

If 48 Tory MPs write to Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, expressing their no-confidence in the prime minister, a vote must be called. Rumors are rife in Westminster that this magic number has almost been reached and that a coup is imminent.

However, because the Conservative party appears to be at war with itself, there is a strong possibility that May could win a vote. Just look at what Nicholas Soames, a veteran Tory MP who happens to be the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, has said in a series of tweets:

“I am truly dismayed at the dismal behavior of some of my colleagues parading their letters to Graham Brady on TV in a vulgar display of inferior virtue signaling… It should be a point of Honor to see off the ERG and its hard right members who have been ruining the fortunes of our Party for years…”

Is There an Alternative?

Many Tory MPs may not be happy with May, but the alternative for some could be much worse. Arch Brexiteer and former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, may still be popular in the country. But he has always struggled to get support from within Parliament. And what if someone who backed staying in the EU, such as new Work and Pensions Secretary, Amber Rudd, were to stand and win? That would infuriate the Tory right—not to mention those ten pro-Brexit MPs from Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who currently prop up the government. Neither side can guarantee that one of their own would win. Important to remember too that if May were to win a no-confidence vote, she couldn’t be challenged again for a year.

But if May were to lose, there would be political chaos. She would have to resign and would be barred from standing in the leadership election that followed. Parliament would be dissolved for two weeks although May would stay in Downing Street during that period.

If the Tories were unable to choose a new leader and form a government within 14 days, a general election would be called. And that is exactly what the leadership of the main opposition Labour Party is praying to see happen. But make no mistake, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is inherently euroskeptic. Only last week he told Germany’s DER SPIEGEL magazine that there should be no second referendum on Brexit.

Divided Labour

Labour itself, though, is also divided. There are those MPs who want out of the European Union as soon as possible; others who support Brexit only because their constituents voted out; those who could back May because of fears of a no-deal; and a number who deeply oppose Brexit and want a second referendum. The problem for this fourth group of Labour MPs is that recent polls suggest there’s no guarantee a majority in the country would vote to stay in the EU.

So where does this leave Brexit? Of course, no-one can really say for sure—not Brussels, not London. But don’t write off this week’s draft agreement and don’t write off Theresa May. On Friday two key Brexiteers within her Cabinet—Environment Secretary Michael Gove and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox—said they were staying put. As the person who played a key role in the Leave campaign admitted to me, “Theresa May could still pull this off.”

The post Brexit Plan Mayday? Maybe Not appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.

© REUTERS/Yves Herman

Ever since Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the US Congress in early April, European Union politicians have been demanding he face questions in Brussels as well. After all, not only does Facebook have more users in the EU than in the US, it also represents the website’s main privacy regulator.

Facebook stalled on the invitation for weeks. Zuckerberg also declined a request to appear before the British Parliament to answer questions about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which a British company gained access to millions of American users’ data and used them for targeted advertising benefiting the Trump campaign.

But last week Facebook had a sudden change of heart. European Parliament President Antonio Tajani announced on Twitter that the Facebook CEO had relented to the mighty European Parliament and agreed to testify before it.

However, just hours after the announcement, it emerged that Zuckerberg had in fact only agreed to meet privately with the Parliament’s “Conference of Presidents’”—the leaders of its eight political groups. The meeting would be held behind closed doors.

Members of the parliament and the public were infuriated by the bait-and-switch. After relentless public pressure over the weekend, Tajani announced that Facebook had agreed to let the hearing be web-streamed. It wasn’t ideal for many privacy advocates, who said the better venue would be the Parliament’s civil liberties committee—MEPs who know the details of the relevant legislation. Having Zuckerberg be interrogated by group presidents who don’t know the details of the relevant legislation would be pointless, they said.

But it quickly got worse. Tajani then took the decision to give the meeting a bizarre format. Zuckerberg would give opening remarks, eleven MEPs would ask questions, and then Zuckerberg would give one response collectively for all questions. There would be no opportunity for follow-up.

The result on Tuesday night was predictable. Zuckerberg’s opening statement was largely a repeat of what he told the US Congress. The MEPs asked their questions, but Zuckerberg largely chose to ignore them. He seemed to many to be trying to run out the clock, and he did.

When he finished, and Tajani said “that’s a wrap,” the MEPs howled in protest. Several shouted out objections that he hadn’t answered their questions, including one on “shadow profiles” that Facebook compiles about non-users and one on whether the company is linking data from Facebook and the chat service Whatsapp in order to develop big data to sell to advertisers. The MEPs began bickering, there in the live feed for all the world to see, before Tajani abruptly brought things to a close.

It remains unclear whose idea the format was. Did Facebook request the private session and format without follow-ups? Or was it offered to them by Tajani as an enticement for Zuckerberg to come to Brussels and be treated with kid gloves? Neither side will say.

Farage Enters

To reestablish trust with European lawmakers, Zuckerberg had to assure them of three things: that Facebook is tackling fake news and election interference, that Facebook is going to be fully compliant with the EU’s new data privacy rules (GDPR) that take effect on May 25, and that Facebook is not a monopoly that needs to be broken up.

But his assertions were full of the same platitudes he had given the US Congress. “Facebook plays a positive role in elections around the world, by helping leaders like you directly connect with voters,” he told the MEPs.

At least members of the US Congress were able to follow-up when they felt their questions weren’t being answered

Claude Moraes, the chairman of the parliament’s civil liberties committee who was invited to attend the hearing, emerged saying the whole thing had been a farce, though he acknowledged that perhaps it was better than nothing. Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the liberal ALDE party caucus, said he will be demanding written answers from the company for the questions that were not addressed by Zuckerberg.

Not every MEP left the room furious with Zuckerberg, though. Nigel Farage, the Brexit champion who leads the Euroskeptic parliament group Europe of Freedom and Democracy, told Zuckerberg during the hearing: “I’m probably your best friend in this room”.

Facebook shouldn’t be making any changes, Farage said. It should remain a neutral platform that isn’t in the business of deciding what is or isn’t “fake news.” He then accused the service of starting to show a bias against the right-wing following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

“My Facebook clicks and views have fallen by 25 percent since the start of the year,” he complained.

The whole episode was less than reassuring for Facebook users watching at home who are concerned about their privacy. And it likely didn’t fill them with confidence about the European Parliament either.

And, as if to symbolize the embarrassing affair, during the hearing a portion of the ceiling collapsed in the press room where Tajani was due to give his press conference afterwards—alone, of course, without Zuckerberg. The journalists in the room couldn’t decide what they found funnier: the shambles unfolding on the viewing screen, or the pieces of plaster covering the floor.

The post Zuckerberg’s Easy Ride appeared first on Berlin Policy Journal - Blog.