Edit: After thinking about this a little longer, it seems the proof is much simpler.
Note that $[0,1]^\mathbb{N}$ contains the Cantor space $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$. The Cantor space is closed in $[0,1]^\mathbb{N}$ in both $\tau_U$ and $\tau_P$, and the restriction of $\tau_P$ to $\{0,1\}^\mathbb{N}$ produces the usual topology on the Cantor space whereas the restriction of $\tau_U$ gives the discrete topology. Hence any subset of the Cantor space which doesn't have the Baire Property is already closed as a subset of $[0,1]^\mathbb{N}$ with $\tau_U$, and cannot have the Baire Property as a subset of $[0,1]^\mathbb{N}$ with $\tau_P$.
I'm leaving the previous argument below because I think it's interesting.
Nate's suggestion in his comment above works, with a little tinkering, to show that the answer to question 2 is no.
First, notice that we may replace $[0,1]^\mathbb{N}$ with $\mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is the unit circle. (Consider the quotient map $[0,1]\to \mathbb{T}$; all of the relevant topological notions are preserved.)
Now fix a function $\phi : \mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{T}$ which is multiplicative, continuous with respect to the uniform topology on $\mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N}$, and takes convergent sequences to their limits. (We won't need shift-invariance; any nonprincipal ultrafilter limit will do.) Divide $\mathbb{T}$ into three closed arcs $A_0$, $A_1$, and $A_2$ corresponding to the intervals $[0,1/3]$, $[1/3,2/3]$, and $[2/3,1]$, and let $E_k = \phi^{-1}(A_k)$. Note that each $E_k$ is uniformly closed, $\mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N} = E_0\cup E_1\cup E_2$, and
$$ E_0^2 = E_0\cup E_1,\quad E_1^2 = E_0\cup E_2,\quad E_2^2 = E_1\cup E_2 $$
One of the $E_k$'s must be nonmeager. Suppose for a contradiction that it also has the Baire Property; then it's comeager in some nonempty (product-)open set $U\subseteq\mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N}$. By Pettis's lemma (see Nate's reference above, or Theorem 9.9 in Kechris's Classical Descriptive Set Theory), $U^2\subseteq E_k^2$. Then the image of $U^2$ under $\phi$ is disjoint from the interior of some $A_j$. It's easy to see that this is a contradiction, since any (product-)open set in $\mathbb{T}^\mathbb{N}$ contains sequences which converge to any given limit in $\mathbb{T}$.