Owen Polley Exposes Steve Baker’s Hypocrisy: Unionist Attack Fails to Validate Labour as Better Government

Gavin Robinson commended Hilary Benn, who was the Shadow Secretary of State at the time, for his efforts to 'solidify stability.' The DUP leader also dismissed the notion that Labour might be "to some extent... supportive of Irish nationalism."

Doug Beattie, who led the UUP, hoped a fresh administration would mend the harm done to the Union.

It came as no surprise to learn about these perspectives. Numerous unionists in Northern Ireland felt deeply disillusioned after fourteen years under Conservative prime ministers. Each Tory leader had voiced strong backing for their constitutional stance. David Cameron established the principle that Conservatives would 'always stand firm' with the Union, a sentiment echoed by those who followed him.

However, the party's actions entirely contradicted this feeling.

It was under a Conservative administration that Northern Ireland was isolated politically, legally, and economically from the rest of the UK (following assurances from both Theresa May and Boris Johnson that neither would ever agree to a sea border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Few individuals exemplified this betrayal as much as the staunch Brexiteer turned compliant Northern Ireland Office minister, Steve Baker.

His selection by Liz Truss in 2022, along with Secretary of State Chris Heaton-Harris, sparked dismay among nationalist groups. SDLP Member of Parliament Claire Hanna labeled this choice as 'repugnant' and a 'cause for concern'.

While in office, Baker criticised unionists for not accepting the sea border and apologized to Dublin for his actions during Brexit. Last week, however, he did it once more. In a Twitter post accusing Labour of undoing aspects of Brexit, Baker advised "unionists in Northern Ireland, driven by their passion for the Union," to refrain from backing what he called "a betrayal of our entire nation."

In response to this post, Sammy Morrison, the TUV’s press officer, expressed understandable anger when they referred to the ex-minister as a 'disgusting hypocrite'.

Baker’s attitude, that Northern Ireland should accept a relationship with the EU that he would never support for the rest of the UK, was galling and indefensible. That’s before we consider the implication that prioritising the Union, rather than independence from Brussels, amounts to zealotry.

However, this was merely an exceptionally blatant instance of the mental gymnastics performed by pro-Brexit Tory MPs to rationalise both the protocol and their subsequent agreements with the European Union.

However, the notion that Labour can be relied upon as a stronger ally for Northern Ireland, or that their talks with the EU will magically erase the maritime boundary, now seems misguided.

Conversely, both Benn and Keir Starmer adopted an almost pro-Union stance. They rejected the idea of a border poll, with Starmer stating his commitment to supporting our continued membership in the UK should such a referendum occur.

Once in power, these somewhat moderate Unionist sentiments were swiftly abandoned. The administration blocked the Conservative Party’s efforts to tackle the lingering controversy surrounding British soldiers facing legal action, whereasIRA killers effectively gained immunity from prosecution. Additionally, they promptly initiated an investigation into the killing of Pat Finucane.

These dubious policies have persisted since then.

Not long ago, the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) Minister, Fleur Anderson, expressed unclear views regarding the conditions necessary for conducting a border poll. During her appearance on Agenda NI, she stated that the outcome of opinion polls, instead of a comprehensive evaluation by the Secretary of State, would serve as the determining element.

At the same time, Hilary Benn’s remarks about the Irish language, which demonstrated a lack of comprehension regarding its politically sensitive past, drew criticism from Mike Nesbitt, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

In light of these developments, certain unionists contend that Labour’s 'reset' with the European Union will render the Windsor Framework obsolete and essentially eliminate the maritime boundary.

The government aims to establish a veterinary SPS accord with the European Union, essentially adopting their framework of food safety regulations. While this might simplify certain bureaucratic processes for Great Britain-based businesses exporting food products or livestock into the region, it would be misleading to suggest that it would significantly diminish the regulatory checks at the maritime boundary.

In order for this to occur, the EU would need to willingly relax its control over Northern Ireland, an eventuality that remains highly improbable. Despite assertions that the arrangement pertained solely to trade in goods, its legal ramifications have extended into areas such as migration and discussions about gender equality.

Furthermore, Brussels originally stated that it could never make concessions regarding food and agriculture; otherwise, its market would be jeopardised. Unexpectedly, the stringent aspects of the framework were ultimately imposed on various other products and materials instead.

The government intends to adopt certain regulations in these sectors as well, through legislation enabling ministers to synchronize with European Union laws without requiring parliamentary acts. Although the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill might stop some fresh discrepancies from emerging, it does not come near to eliminating the maritime boundary.

The astonishing thing is that Labour’s masterplan seems to be to voluntarily conform with all sorts of aspects of the EU, without asking for any guarantees or anything in return. It is an astonishingly naive strategy. And, after so many years of broken promises, you would expect unionists to be sceptical about its chances of success.

Baker argued that it would be inappropriate for unionists to endorse an arrangement for Northern Ireland if it effectively undid Brexit for the remainder of the UK. It seemed disgraceful coming from him given his history. Additionally, there are several reasons to doubt that Labour’s submissive stance towards the EU will genuinely mend Britain’s standing within theUnion.