Why was Why does Britain adopt EU initiatives with greater zest than other more Europhilic member states? closed 'as unclear'?
I voted to close the question as it's asking for an answer based on an opinion piece for a book and that the excerpt that you included doesn't include any examples of EU initiatives that the UK adopted "with greater zest than other more Europhilic member states".
In addition, the question in the title and the body seem to be different.
- The question in the title is asking for the reason why "Britain adopt EU initiatives with greater zest than other more Europhilic member states".
- IMO this's primarily opinion-based unless examples are cited. One can also that Germany's quite enthusiastic in the EU, so they would adopt EU initiatives with zest too. It would be much better to includes a few EU initiatives that the UK adopted with "greater zest", rather than just including an excerpt from a book.
- The question in the body seems to be questioning the contradiction in the excerpt.
- This can't really be answered since it's more about the author's use of words, which is off-topic as it's not "about governments, policies or political processes" and may be better suited on EL&U.SE.
The question can be improved if:
- Examples of EU policies that the UK adopted with "greater zest than other more Europhilic member states" are included, in addition to the excerpt.
- The contradiction of the title and body is resolved.
So, basically, that's my reason for voting to close the question. I'd be happy to vote to reopen it when the outstanding issues are resolved.
If you want to explain a phenomenon or event then the first step should always be to make sure that it actually happened.
Far too often do I see people "explain" phenomenons or events without making sure that it actually happened; this is a common fallacy with "cranks" on topics such as UFOs, conspiracy theories, astrology, quack medical claims, etc. However this fallacy is made outside of those fringe topics – such as political questions – as well.
This – above all – is the problem with questions such as this: you're asking us to "explain" things that may not actually have happened. In your specific question it's quite plausible that the claim is true, but it's also plausible that it's baseless.