If you read it carefully, the article actually says the opposite - that *Labour's* future hangs on a revival of *union*.
1/ https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1384556397778583553

And that's a more interesting proposition, superficially attractive but in my view utterly wrong. The British State exists to maintain privilege, using England's numerical dominance and the semblance of union to cloak its rule in a conflation between English and British.
2/

The ruling class, and its 'imagined community', has deployed 'England' and 'Britain' as emotionally rather than geographically or politically different entities. Brexit de-cloaks it as a Britain that is openly England, and the Tories abandoned the union for Anglosupremacism.
3/

That leaves the UK and 'Britain' as meaning the imperial Tory throwback jingoistic greatness, and nothing else. The husk of union is now a snare, to keep Labour out of power, because the Tories have England and England has the numbers.
4/

So Labour should *not* try to revive the union. It should understand that the union is bad for all of us, except the privileged. It should join with us in dissolving the union.
5/

If Labour proposed independence all round, and spearheaded that move in England, then they could tap the deep roots of working class radicalism in England and take it away from the Tories.
6/

And then we could revive democracy, co-operation, partnership, internationalism, throughout GB - making 'British' a word like 'Scandinavian', expressive of shared history and values, not tied to London rule.
7/7