In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’ we sit down with Steve Baker, whose reputation as the "Hard Man of Brexit" made him a key figure in the UK’s departure from the EU. Baker reflects on his pivotal role as the "Rebel Commander" in orchestrating rebellions during the Brexit years, his methods of leadership, and the toll politics has taken on his mental health. The episode offers an unfiltered look into the mechanisms of political rebellion, party dynamics, and the personal costs of parliamentary life.
Baker recounts his journey from a newcomer to Parliament to a commanding figure in the Brexit movement, detailing how he leveraged personal conviction and strategic organisation to challenge successive Prime Ministers and government whips.
He candidly discusses the emotional and mental toll of his role, sharing moments of intense pressure and his eventual mental health struggles.
Baker offers an insider’s view of parliamentary rebellion, revealing how he employed technology, unwavering resolve, and personal connections to mobilise support. He contrasts his approach with traditional methods, emphasising leadership through shared goals rather than coercion.
The episode also explores the Conservative Party’s ideological fractures, the influence of the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, and the broader implications of Brexit for British democracy.
Steve Baker
Steve Baker is the former Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Wycombe, serving from 2010-2024. Known for his strong stance on Brexit, he played a pivotal role in shaping the UK's withdrawal from the EU, chairing the European Research Group from 2016-17 and 2019-20. He served as Minister of State for Northern Ireland from 2022-24 and as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union from 2017-18. A former Royal Air Force engineer and software developer, Baker advocates for free markets and individual liberty.
Fighting for a free future, Steve Baker's Substack newsletter
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.
[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters Whipping Yarns, our series peering into the hidden world of Westminster's whips. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:25] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark Darcy. Our guest in this edition was one of the key players in Parliament's Brexit wars. Steve Baker spent years pushing his party and Prime Minister into holding a Brexit referendum and then more years ensuring a hard British exit from the EU.
[00:00:39] Ruth Fox: We talked to him about how he ringmastered a series of rebellions against successive party leaders without any of the powers of patronage and punishment available to government whips.
[00:00:50] Mark D'Arcy: He became known as 'Rebel Commander' and the 'Hard Man' of Brexit. I began by asking him if he regretted those nicknames.
[00:00:58] Steve Baker: I sort of regard them with a degree of intense regret and also, I'm afraid, a degree of satisfaction, but they don't give me any actual pleasure. It would have been far better if none of it had been necessary. If only Prime Ministers had chosen to do what I asked them in the first place.
[00:01:15] Mark D'Arcy: Well, you did your best to leverage them into doing it.
[00:01:18] Steve Baker: I'm afraid so.
[00:01:19] Mark D'Arcy: How did you land that role? Was it a conscious choice? Did everybody just at some meeting turn around and look at you?
[00:01:25] Steve Baker: Douglas Carswell. Douglas Carswell.
[00:01:27] We were in Room R organising the rebellion of 81 when we decided that we would have a referendum vote using the new backbench business procedures and there was going to be a votable motion and it was a three way referendum. And we knew that come the day that we didn't want a three way question, but, um, we put it down as a three way question.
[00:01:47] I'm desperately trying to remember the name of the colleague who did it. David Nuttall? David Nuttall. Of course, it was David Nuttall. I just haven't seen him for years. So it was David's lead, and David, uh, made the speech, moved the motion, and we had people who wanted to remain in the European Union who just wanted this settled, voting with us.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
