Troclus 5pts At first I thought the “ever closer union” element of David Cameron’s proposed renegotiation package expressed the right idea, but was too symbolic to be worth the political cost of seeking treaty amendment. I have changed my mind on that - a clear statement about the intended direction of travel of the EU or of (some?) Member States within it IS a matter of substance and is worth seeking formal treaty amendment to achieve. When the concept of Citizenship of the Union was first included in the Treaties, the UK and at least some Member States regarded it as primarily a label for the bundle of (largely free movement) rights which had been bestowed over the years on the nationals of Member States. Yet the Court of Justice treated the label as a signpost towards a future political destination - Citizenship of the Union, said the Court, was destined to be the fundamental status of the nationals of the Member States. The Court has given an unremittingly expansionist interpretation to EU citizenship ever since, limiting in the process the power of the EU institutions to shape that concept for themselves, and inevitably encroaching yet further on national sovereignty. Which brings me to a question I have been meaning to raise with Open Europe for a while. Does the European Court of Justice’s approach to the interpretation of EU law need reform? It might be that it does, but that the only politically feasible way of achieving reform is by exhortation, which is why the Court of Justice is not on David Cameron’s “things that need fixing in the EU” list. In which case, what should the Court of Justice be exhorted to do? And who should do the exhorting?