During a recent address to the Fabian Society in London, Gordon Brown highlighted an issue that should be of major concern to most, if not all, western liberal democracies: the problem of how best to accommodate the ever-growing religious, ethnic and cultural minorities within their midst.
The British chancellor made reference to last year's London bombings, citing them as an extreme example of what can happen if groups of people feel they have little commonality with, or can bear no allegiance to, the larger community within which they were born and raised.
He said the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were all British-born citizens who, despite being "apparently integrated into our communities", were prepared to "maim and kill fellow British citizens irrespective of their religion". Outlining what he feels needs to happen, Mr Brown said: "We have to be clearer now about how diverse cultures which inevitably contain differences can find the essential common purpose. . . without which no society can flourish." A laudable objective but, regrettably, he did not offer any realistic suggestions on how it might be realised.
Instead, Mr Brown went on to talk of patriotism, embracing the union flag and the notion of a "British Day" to celebrate national identity. Where Britain is concerned, at least, the answer is not to be found in any of those. The very absence of a feeling of loyalty to the nation, its people and its flag among sections of British society is a major part of the problem.
Advocating patriotism and flag-waving as some kind of solution to that is simply to confuse the desired goal with a means of achieving it. Besides, while reclaiming national symbols from racist bigots and thugs is essential, appearing to mimic right-wing elements will hardly help sell the idea of a new, all-encompassing, national identity to the marginalised.
Less realistic still was Brown's idea of an annual British Day to celebrate "British history, achievements and culture". Given Britain's colonial past and the ethnic origins of many of its present-day citizens, far from binding people together, large-scale public celebrations of historical events are more likely to cause further division.
History - which should not be denied, altered or contorted to suit contemporary circumstances - is seldom of any use in reconciling division. Having said all of that, Brown has at least raised an issue that many politicians throughout Europe have chosen to ignore or merely paid lip service to.
He has stated bluntly, and rightly, that it can no longer be the case that a society takes little or no account of the values and beliefs held by various minorities within its midst.
There simply cannot be an expectation that a minority "fits in" with a majority view in the hope that gradually and eventually it will be absorbed into a prevailing culture.
The obvious discontent of many British-born citizens - children and grandchildren of migrants - and the number and diversity of new arrivals shows that gradual absorption does not work and even if it did, is not remotely feasible.
Somewhat ironically, Britain is probably better equipped than most nations to tackle the problem of finding - or creating - a common ground that can be happily shared by diverse groups of people with many differing viewpoints. Its very foundations, after all, were laid on the neighbouring and closely related, but nonetheless different, cultures of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Today, though local allegiances remain, they are all but superseded by loyalty to the collective political and social entity of Britain.
As well as that, Britain has a history of managing to successfully integrate settlers from most of its former colonies - as well as from virtually every other part of the world.
Undoubtedly, though, Britain's greatest asset in this regard lies in the character of its people: their laid-back, liberal attitude, and culture of tolerance and moderation.
I can think of nowhere else in the world where protesters can openly burn the national flag with little chance of being arrested and even less of being assaulted by irate members of the public. Though legislation alone can solve nothing, it is worth noting that Britain has some of the most stringent anti-racism and anti-discrimination laws in Europe.
Ultimately, however, the answer to developing a broad national identity that all but the most unreasonable can embrace must lie within society itself.
An all-inclusive national debate about what it means to be British needs to take place, in tandem with an audit to discover all the different ways British people define their nationality. People need an opportunity to explain the aspects of Britishness they can readily identify with and those they cannot, and the government needs to hear their views.
Civic, religious and political leaders of every shade must be encouraged to go to their local communities, ask pertinent questions, and report their findings to central government and its agencies. It is only from a basis of having such knowledge that an all-inclusive national identity can be constructed.