This reply to Neil Fligsteins thought-provoking comments on this special issue’s contributions analyses three specific aspects: the problems of comparing identity construction in different policy areas due to differences in European integration; the focus on EU institutions and lack of attention to social groups and citizens; the EU as a state. We argue that instead of offering one overarching theory of EU state building, the articles analyse what most would regard as a key aspect of a state— political identity—and then consider its top-down policy aspect. This has several advantages: a degree of manageability; seeking careful hypotheses; separating parts that are conceptually distinct, notably the creation of a political identity and then whether citizens actually identify with it; investigating causal linkages.