I have never been impressed by the argument that, because the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to it, the EU has more to lose. In value terms this is true but it is only part of the picture. The percentage of EU exports that come to the UK is much smaller than the percentage of total UK exports that go to the EU. Thus any increase in trade restrictions between the EU and the UK may cost the EU more in absolute value terms but the percentage damage to the UK economy will be much greater than the percentage damage to the EU. Only quoting half the facts is the sort of dishonesty that we were bombarded with by both sides during the referendum campaign.

David Fuller's view

You make a correct point on absolute value terms, but I think it would be more relevant if the EU had first achieved fiscal union, turning it into ‘a United States of Europe’, with a central government to redistribute funds as economically required.  However, the EU’s founders and subsequent national and also bureaucratic leaders knew that it could not achieve fiscal union because no country’s population supported this further loss of sovereignty.  So the EU proceeded with stealth, completely ignoring repeated wise advice from so many who knew their economic history: no currency union has ever survived for long without fiscal union.  This presumably remains out of reach for the 27 countries which have not yet decided to leave the EU.  With the exception of Germany, most are clearly unhappy with the Euro, which has been the chief reason for their economic underperformance.   

Following a clean Brexit, I do not think German automobile manufacturers will be either impressed or influenced by the EU’s absolute value relative to trade percentages with the UK, if they can only export to us on WTO terms.  They would certainly pressure Angela Merkel, if she is still around.