Source: p. 3 Top, The European Union: A Beginner's Guide (1 ed. 2012) by Alasdair Blair.
[1.] For example, some member states, such as Britain, often adopt new EU rules with a greater zest than others, such as Greece, and implement policies at the national level that go beyond what is required from the EU. This process, which is referred to as 'gold-plating', can actually undermine efforts to harmonise policies at an EU level. [End of 1.]
These refinements to EU policies consequently result in additional costs for citizens and businesses that can put them at a competitive disadvantage when compared with other member states. And while a government may consider that there is a perfectly good reason for these additions, criticism can often be targeted towards the EU rather than the member state government at the time of implementation. [2.] In this context, Britain's lack of enthusiasm for many initiatives that deepen European integration belies the tendency for its officials and ministers to be extremely efficient in implementing these policies. [End of 2.] Other countries such as Italy and Spain can have a more high profile public commitment to European integration, but can drag their feet when it comes to implementation.
Why don't 1 and 2 contradict each other? If Britain despises EU initiatives (per 2), then instead of 1, shouldn't it adopt them with less zest?
for many initiatives that deepen European integration, not for all initiatives. That said, it seems like you are reading from the preface of a complete book, I would expect the author to justify these affirmations (hopefully, with a coherent analysis and not by cherrypicking examples) within the book itself. – SJuan76 Jun 24 '17 at 8:25