In each case the backlash against comments such as these came because of a wider sentiment that in the multicultural era Europe was being expected to give up too much of itself – including its history – while those who had arrived were being expected to give up next to nothing of their traditions. If that was indeed one direction in which Europe might have been heading, Cameron, Merkel, Sarkozy and other politicians of the right were attempting to outline another route. None of them was denying that the process of adaptation might be a two-way street, but they were being careful to stress what was expected of the immigrants, in particular to be able to speak the language of the country they were in and to live by its laws.

The virulence with which such basic demands were debated was a reminder that absolutely none of this had been planned for in the post-war years. It was just the latest part of a ‘make it up as we go along’ process. And it meant that even the terms being used were constantly changing. As the historian and critic of multiculturalism, Rumy Hasan, said in a book published at this time, the distinct phases of Britain’s post-war immigration was one demonstration of this fact. During the first phase (from the 1940s to the 1970s) non-white settlers from the Commonwealth were known as ‘coloured immigrants’ and recognised as different from the rest of society. Then during the 1970s and 1980s, partly in an effort to tackle discrimination, these people became ‘Black British’ and began to be viewed as normal and equal citizens. Soon afterwards the country became characterised as a ‘multicultural’ society in the sense that it contained people from different cultures. As Hasan says, a ‘multiracial’ or ‘multi-ethnic’ society would have been a better description, but the discrediting of the idea of ‘race’ by that time meant that ‘multiculturalism’ seemed to be the best term on offer. However, if its intentions were to unite people under one national umbrella, the new definition ended up having the opposite effect. Indeed, rather than leading to a unified identity it led to a fracturing of identities, where instead of making society colour- or identity-blind, it suddenly made identity into everything.