[fidgewidge]

"Even if you look at it as a purely engineering problem you'd see that adding more red tape on trade would be most detrimental to the smallest player"

This is economically illiterate, calling it an engineering problem doesn't change that.

Trade happens when both sides can benefit. If trade stops happening, both sides lose. Artificial trade barriers do not mean one side "wins", they are always and everywhere a way to penalize some local citizens in order to prioritize others, usually owners of businesses that are favoured by the state in some way.

At any rate it's an academic question. UK exports to the EU recovered to the prior level, it is selling the same quantity as before. Imports are lower, so UK buys less from the EU. Balance of trade therefore actually improved. This is not widely reported because the media is full of people who want everyone to believe Brexit has been an economic disaster. The reality is it'll never be possible to know because any impact is so small as to be invisible against the chaos caused by lockdowns.

[martimarkov]

1. Imports from EU are higher than pre-Brexit and higher than exports. So it's the deficit is also higher than before. 2. The EU does not have the UK as their biggest (40%+) market. Therefore the smaller player is the UK. If all trade stops - yes both sides lose. One collapses economically overnight. 3. The EU can either absorb the cost on its internal market (and sell goods internally for a smaller margin) or export to other players as there are existing trade agreements (again with a smaller margin). The UK does not have access to the same deals. 4. The EU market has a much higher GDP. Losing 1 trading partner even of the of Britain would not take down the Union.

[fidgewidge]

All you're saying is that the EU has a higher willingness for self-inflicting economic pain on its citizens, which is true, but not an argument for being inside it.